This note is being sent to all new people on the SPACE mailing list.  It is
being distributed through SAIL once a day in rough digest format.  Mail to
SPACE@MIT-MC will collect in a file at SAIL and be sent out at about 4:00 AM
PST.  The topics to be covered will not be constrained but are expected to
include things like space colonization, solar power satellites and the like.
A log of mail sent to this list is being kept in the file SPACE.LOG[SPA,OTA]
at SAIL.  You can type or FTP this file with out an account.

Any comments, complains, or requests pertaining to this list should be
directed to me,

Ted Anderson (OTA@SAIL)

22-Nov-80  0009	OTA  	First message 
To:   "@SPACE.DIS[1,OTA]" at SU-AI    
This is the first message on the SPACE mailing list.  If you have a questions,
complaints, requests or whatever direct them to me (OTA@SAIL).  Judging from
the messages directed to mostly to ENERGY this list is like to deal with space
colonization and exploration.  Though the topics will hardly be constrained.

Due to various problems with using ITS as a hub for this mailing list I am
going to try to coordinate it from SAIL.  Please continue to send contributions
to this list to SPACE@MC from there it will be collected in a file at SAIL for
once per day distribution at about 5AM PST.  Hopefully this scheme will minimize
the load for all concerned and the batch nature of the list will not cramp the
discussion much.

Ted Anderson (OTA@SAIL)

22-Nov-80  0500	OTA  
To:   "@SPACE.DIS[1,OTA]" at SU-AI    
 22-Nov-80  0030	OTA at MIT-MC (Owen T. Anderson) 	space mailing list   
Date: 22 NOV 1980 0330-EST
From: OTA at MIT-MC (Owen T. Anderson)
Subject: space mailing list
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Date: 21 Nov 1980 2218-EST
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: space mailing list
To: ota at MIT-MC
cc: king at RUTGERS

	Please include me in the SPACE mailing list.  I even have a
"half-baked" idea to introduce myself with.
	Many people must have heard of the "space leotard" concept, where a
person dons a tight-fitting porous elastic suit with a helmet for EVA work.  I
submit the following:  A normal blood pressure is about 110 mmHg, and probably
less in zero-G.  A partial Oxygen pressure of about 150 mmHg is normal, and
people could do quite well on about 100.  If I put a helmet full of pure
oxygen at 100 mm over my head, attached to a girdle around my chest and
abdomen and (for a man) genitals, my arms and legs would probably be
reasonably comfortable with fluid pressures of 220 mm or so.  The engineering
problem of supporting every concavity disappears.
	One objection to both this and a space leotard system is that each
sweat gland would grow a salt crystal.  Would this really make trouble, or
would the crystals grow to a certain small size and then be kicked out by the
vapor?  Also, does a "turned off" sweat gland close tightly enough to give the
body control over its cooling?


23-Nov-80  0500	OTA  
To:   "@SPACE.DIS[1,OTA]" at SU-AI    
 22-Nov-80  1514	TAW at SU-AI 	Space Leotards  
Date: 22 Nov 1980 1457-PST
From: TAW at SU-AI
Subject: Space Leotards
To:   space at MIT-MC  

	As you are probably aware, Jerry Pournelle has written quite a bit
about the leotard-type spacesuit.  Not too long ago, I had the opportunity
to mention the concept to a guy who is doing some spacesuit related research
for NASA Ames.  Surprisingly (to me at least) he had never even heard of the
idea.
	One point that this fellow brought out is the problem of the neck
seal.  Since the suit is supposed to be porous, to allow the sweat glands to
regulate temperature, how can the air pocket of the helmet area be bonded
to the tight-fitting suit and its occupant with an adequate pressure seal?
This problem has probably been solved, since I am aware (via Dr. Pournelle)
of some (limited) testing of a prototype suit some years ago. I would be
interested in learning of that solution, if it indeed exists.
	As for the salt crystals, wouldn't any motion of the suit wearer
tend to dislodge and break off such crystals?? Except perhaps on some
places (near the lower back area???) that would not move much no matter what
the occupant did.  However, this presents another problem.  Salt crystals
wedged between skin and suit cannot be very comfortable.
						-- Tom Wadlow



!22-Nov-80  1540	TAW at SU-AI 	When Sagan talks, do people listen???    
Date: 22 Nov 1980 1538-PST
From: TAW at SU-AI
Subject: When Sagan talks, do people listen???  
To:   space at MIT-MC  


	Nation In Danger of Losing Its Edge In Space, Sagan Says

    PHOENIX, Ariz. (AP) - The United States is in danger of losing its
edge and its expertise in the exploration of space, astronomy
professor Carl Sagan said Friday.
    Sagan, who wrote, produced and narrates the current popular science
series ''Cosmos'' on public television, said the United States ''has
been nosediving'' for several years because of cutbacks in projects
and funding while the space exploration efforts of other nations have
been rising.
    Yet such planetary exploration efforts as Voyager I's flight past
Saturn, with the answers it is providing in long-asked questions while
at the same time posing new riddles, is both beneficial and
relatively inexpensive, said Sagan, who teaches at Cornell University.
    Addressing the final luncheon of the Associated Press Managing
Editors Association's annual convention, Sagan said the Voyager
project costs one cent per world for every inhabitant of Earth - and
has found 20 to 30 new worlds.
    One of the worlds that have come under the gaze of Voyager I,
Saturn's moon Titan, has an atmosphere from which it appears that
large, complex organic or carbon-based molecules have been raining for
billions of years, Sagan said.
    For this and other reasons, it may be that activity on Titan is much
like the steps which led to life on Earth, which makes Titan a
''target of greatest significance for future exploration,'' Sagan
said.
    
		--------------------------
 



!22-Nov-80  2301	Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI> 	What do the Russians want with Venus?    
Date: 22 Nov 1980 2300-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: What do the Russians want with Venus?  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Consider this:

n043  1248  22 Nov 80
 
BC-VENUS
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c. 1980 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - The Soviet Union is planning four missions in the next
five years to land robot spacecraft on Venus and is using new
American radar maps of the cloud-enveloped planet to select the
landing sites, according to an American planetary scientist.
	...
    For the time being, the Soviet Union seems to have abandoned
exploration of any planets other than Venus. There have been no
Soviet flights to the Moon since Luna 24, which returned a lunar soil
sample in 1976, and no flights to Mars since 1974, when Mars 7 failed
in a landing attempt. In fact, no Soviet mission to Mars has
succeeded. No Soviet missions have ever been launched to Mercury or
the outer giants, Jupiter and Saturn.
(the rest of the story available upon request)

So are the Russians thinking of terraforming venus perhaps?  Does any
one know what the current thought on such a project are?  How hard would
it be?  How much mass would have to be imported?  How long would it take?



24-Nov-80  0501	OTA  
To:   "@SPACE.DIS[1,OTA]" at SU-AI    
 23-Nov-80  2224	POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle) 	brtass brassieres    
Date: 24 NOV 1980 0124-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject: brtass brassieres
To: SPACE at MIT-MC, OTA at SU-AI


The REPORT which tells all is from Paul Webb,

Webb Associates
Yellow Springs OHIO.  

Exact reference is given I believe in my article on the subject.

The neck seal works.  The Space Activity Suit has not, of course, been
tested in zero gee.  It has been recommended to the new space team.

JEP

!24-Nov-80  0353	Hank.Walker@CMUA (Sent by DUFFEY) 	NASA budget    
From: Hank.Walker@CMUA (Sent by DUFFEY)
Date: 11/24/80 06:54:03
Subject:  NASA budget

Hank.Walker@CMUA (Sent by DUFFEY) 11/24/80 06:54:03 Re:  NASA budget
To: Space at MIT-MC

Date: 20 November 1980 2034-EST

On the CBS Evening News today, Jack Kemp (R-Buffalo) was featured on
a report on how to hack the budget.  He said that probably not much
could be done next year, but growth could be held down in the future
by limiting budget growth of various things, one of which was NASA.
This was not because of any dislike of space, but simply because it
is one of the "controllables", unlike welfare, etc, that take an act
of Congress to adjust spending.  Since he is close to Reagan, this
view may be shared by others.



25-Nov-80  0500	OTA  
To:   "@SPACE.DIS[1,OTA]" at SU-AI    
SPACE Digest
!24-Nov-80  0532	DREIFU at WHARTON (Henry Dreifus) 	From the AP, Re:  NASA Space Shutle.    
Date: 24 Nov 1980 (Monday) 0832-EDT
From: DREIFU at WHARTON (Henry Dreifus)
Subject: From the AP, Re:  NASA Space Shutle.
To:   space at MIT-MC


 3            Space Shuttle,390
              Shuttle Rollout Again Delayed

    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - The 300-yard move of the Space Shuttle
Columbia from its hangar to the building where it will be hoisted into
a vertical position was delayed so crews could fit the craft with a
protective skin of tile, officials said.

    The shuttle was to have been moved to the nearby Vehicle Assembly
Building at Kennedy Space Center early Sunday, but officials of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration sqid the move would take
place no earlier than late today.

    The shuttle, however, is expected to be launched as planned by March
1981.

    ''We're almost there,'' shuttle program spokesmen John Yardley told
reporters Sunday. ''Since we scheduled the Columbia move in July, I
think everyone has done a fantastic job and I'm not ashamed at all.

    There was a lot more work than we planned.''

    The project is three years behind schedule and has had a $4 billion
cost overrun.

    One of the biggest headaches in the entire Columbia program has been
the installation and testing of 31,000 lightweight silica tiles which
will protect it and its crew from the scorching temperatures of
re-entry into the atmosphere.

    Intensive testing of the thermal protection system has been the key
factor in repeated launch delays and cost overruns. The original cost
estimate of $5.1 billion has soared to more than $8.8 billion,
according to NASA officials.

    Yardley, assistant administrator for Space Transportation Systems
Acquisition at NASA headquarters, said the last tile was fitted into
place Sunday morning and the last of the gap-filler was being applied
Sunday evening.

    The filler goes in the tiny expansion joints between each of the
thousands of pieces of thermal tile, each of which has been
individually contoured to fit the shuttle's skin.

    When the move is finally made, the ungainly, delta-wing aerospace
craft will take a slow, 300-yard journey behind a tow tractor to the
assembly building.

    There, its cautious handlers will attach a cradle-like sling around
its tubby white-and-gray belly and hoist it into a vertical position.

    They will retract its landing gear, pull it high overhead and gently
lower it into High Bay No. 3 for attachment to its huge external fuel
tank and twin rocket boosters.

    After several weeks of various tests in the VAB, Columbia is to move
to the launch pad shortly after Christmas and will undergo a brief
flight-readiness test firing on February 7.

!24-Nov-80  1107	J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX> 	Write in campaign...  
Date: 24 Nov 1980 1406-EST
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX>
Subject: Write in campaign...
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-XX

	Well, it sounds like it's time to get a write-in campaign organized
to Congress as well as the Executive to cut some of those "uncuttable"
programs and spend money one something USEFUL for a change.
	"Uncuttable" - my foot. All that means is that they don't have
the b***s to cut it because of the flak. MMaybe they ought to find out
that the get flak for not cutting them. I don't object to helping people,
but when they are eating seed grain to do it I do.
			Noel
-------

!24-Nov-80  1157	Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI> 	Voyager news stories       
Date: 24 Nov 1980 0853-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Voyager news stories    
To:   space at MIT-MC  


For those of you who did not know, a file containing ALL the New
York Times and AP news wire stories about the Voyager mission is
publicly available at SAIL.  The file is VOYGER.NS[T,JPM].
You can FTP this file from SAIL without an account.


Jim

25-Nov-80  1700	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To:   "@SPACE.DIS[1,OTA]" at SU-AI    

Administrivia:
Hopefully from know on these messages will contain a subject field.  Also
an alias name for the mailing list now exists: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS@MC.  I
know its longer but its use is recomended.  SPACE@MC will continue to
exist but there have been some ambiguity problems with the shorter name
and it may go away.

!25-Nov-80  1129	TAW at SU-AI 	Shuttle landings (real and fictional)    
Date: 25 Nov 1980 1125-PST
From: TAW at SU-AI
Subject: Shuttle landings (real and fictional)  
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI 

	If I am not mistaken, the Columbia will be landing at Edwards
AFB (near L.A.) after her initial launch (supposedly on Mar 14) and
3 day mission.  Does anyone know if there is some place near Edwards
with a reasonable view of the landing field, where normal human 
non-military, non-press types are allowed??  Since it is unlikely
that I will get to KSC for the launch, I would at least like to see the
landing, if possible.  Anybody else want to go???
	Regarding Shuttle landings, there is what appears to be an 
excellent story in the current issue of ANALOG magazine, called
'Shuttle Down'.  (I say 'appears to be' because it is the first part
of four, so be warned.)  It concerns a post-launch engine malfunction
and emergency landing of the Atlantis.  I recommend it.

-- Tom



COMMENT    VALID 00001 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 ENDMK
C;
27-Nov-80  0501	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To:   "@SPACE.DIS[SPA,OTA]" at SU-AI  
----------------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 1980 0515-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: old space mail archive  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I am keeping a log of all mail to the SPACE mailing list in the file:
SPACE.LOG[SPA,OTA] on SAIL.  You can type or FTP this file from SAIL without
and account (as you probably know by now).  Hopefully this mailing of the 
digest will finally be in a reasonably polished form.  Please excuse my
experimenting in the several previous editions.



----------------------------------------

From: DUFFEY@MIT-AI
Date: 11/26/80 08:22:41
Subject:  Where to obtain copies of the Voyager newswire stories

DUFFEY@MIT-AI 11/26/80 08:22:41 Re:  Where to obtain copies of the Voyager newswire stories
To: Space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
CC: DUFFEY at MIT-AI

Recently Jim gave a pointer to a SU-AI file containing copies
of all the AP/NYT wire stories on the Voyager mission. I would
like to remind everyone that the file is quite large (approx.
0.25 Mbyte).  For your convenience and to avoid problems with
many people copying the material onto their systems, SF-LOVERS
has made the material available from files at each of the sites
listed below. Due to the large volume of material, RUTGERS has
chosen to make it available from a BBOARD rather than simply
from a file.  

A copy of this material will remain available from the SF-LOVERS
permanent archives.  Thanks also go to Richard Brodie, Richard
Lamson, Doug Philips, and Jon Solomon for their work to maintain
the material on their systems.

   Site          Filename
  
MIT-AI       AI:DUFFEY;SFLVRS VOYGER
CMUA         TEMP:VOYAGE.UPD[A210DP0Z]
MIT-Multics  >udd>SysMaint>Lamson>sf-lovers>voyager-news.text
PARC-MAXC    [Maxc]<Brodie>Voyager.TXT
SU-AI        VOYGER.NS[T,JPM]

[Note, you can TYPE or FTP the file from SAIL without an account.]

Rutgers      At Rutgers the Voyager material will be available from
             the <HACKS>VOYAGER BBOARD. This BBOARD is being updated
             automatically twice daily. Rutgers people interested in
             keeping abreast of the Voyager I results should execute
             BBOARD <HACKS>VOYAGER in their customary way (ie. in
             your LOGIN.CMD, BBoard.CMD, manually, etc.)


----------------------------------------

Date:    26 Nov 1980 1616-EST
From:    HANS.MORAVEC at CMU-10A 
Subject: Audiophilia
To:      space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

 Last week the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette carried an article about a local
doctor who (as a sideline) is able to identify piece and orchestra by
simply looking at the grooves of classical records for a few seconds.
 The Voyagers carry gold records with sounds and sights of earth, and
a stylus and cartridge to play it.
 But what do make of the observation from the high resolution pictures
of Saturn's rings, with their thousands of grooves, that the ring system
has all the features of a 45rpm singles disc?  And why are the Saturnians
using an obsolete format?  Radio doesn't take that long to get there.

----------------------------------------

Date: 27 NOV 1980 0305-EST
From: VAD at MIT-MC (Al Walker)
Subject: Fones and things
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

I suppose I should say welcome to the club.   But first, your inquir
entry is a bit blatant about screwing the fern system and makes you
sound like some kind of nut, not a person with a technical interest in
communication stuff.  I suggest you change that.  
what kinds of hackery are you into?  like, introduce yourself to us!

28-Nov-80  0501	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To:   "@SPACE.DIS[SPA,OTA]" at SU-AI  
----------------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 1980 1213-PST
From: Rod Brooks <ROD at SU-AI>
Subject: Three man Soyuz.   
To:   space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

a089  0847  27 Nov 80
BC-Soviet Space,40
URGENT
    MOSCOW (AP) - The Soviet Union sent three cosmonauts into space
Thursday aboard a Soyuz T-3 spacecraft, Radio Moscow announced.
    The radio broadcast said all systems were functioning normally
aboard the craft.
 - - - - - -
a091  0915  27 Nov 80
BC-Soviet Space, 1st add, a089,130
URGENT
MOSCOW: the craft
    The cosmonauts were identified as Oleg Makarov, 47, the flight
engineer making his fourth space flight; Leonid Kizim, a 39-year-old
former air force pilot who is the commander of the ship, and Gennady
Strekalov, 40, a research engineer.
    It is the first space mission for Kizim and Strekalov, but the sixth
manned spacecraft launched by the Soviets this year.
    The broadcast said the crew is to continue testing a new spaceship
of the Soyuz T series. It made no mention of the length of the flight,
nor provide any details about the liftoff.
    According to the radio report, the spaceship has computer equipment
designed to help pilot the craft.
    It said the previous two tests of similar spaceships were
successful.
 - - - - - -
a202  0932  27 Nov 80
BC-Soviet Space, 2nd add, a091,90
MOSCOW: were successful
    Only last month, Soviet cosmonauts Valery Ryumin and Leonid Popov
completed the longest space flight in history, 185 days. They spent
virtually the entire flight aboard the orbiting Soviet space station,
Salyut 6.
    There was no word from the official Moscow media if the three new
cosmonauts would link with the space station, which has been in orbit
more than three years.
    Makarov, a veteran of the Soviet space program, made his first
flight, which lasted only two days, in 1973.
    He joined the space program in 1966.
 * * * * * *



----------------------------------------

Date: 28 NOV 1980 0052-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject: Please, can't we just drop the subject?
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

    LATEE@MIT-AI 11/27/80 23:23:05
    in response to: "have we any good suggestions for using high
    technology to DO GOOD? 

    almost everyone in these labs belives that they are using high
    technology to DO GOOD?  The question is what is meant by good?
    To whom is the technology to benefit?  how is it beneficial?
    at what costs?  what tradeoffs?


    The work in medical research,  Logo and the handicapped, and robotics
    could all be argued to be GOOD uses of technology.  However,
    many unskilled laborers would argue the opposing view.  With our
    economic set-up,  we are constantly forced to choose between 
    causes and uses of funds.  There has never been a clean line.  The
    best one can do is to build and support your own views and
    be tolerant of others.  There is no right and wrong,  
    there are only differences.  
    If you could specify what type of suggestions you are
    looking for,  you may find responses more supportive.


-------------------------------------
	I think under the circumstances, let's forget the whole
thing.  Sorry I bothered you.
	For those few who don't know, "black hole" is an
astronomical term for an object of some gravity; it has no
racial connotations as far as I know.  The Russians, to be sure,
do not use the term because in Russian the literal translation
of "black hole" is an obscenity which means about what you thnk
it does, and so their official term is "frozen star"; but since
the rest of the world uses Black Hole (I even have a book out
with that title, BLACK HOLES, edited by J E Pournelle, Fawcett,
1979) even the Russians are coming around, prudes though they are.
	Given the kinds of responses I am getting to my
suggestion, I regret making it; and fo God's sake, no one was
coerced into replying.  I have learned a lot...
	JEP

29-Nov-80  0500	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To:   "@SPACE.DIS[SPA,OTA]" at SU-AI  
----------------------------------------

Date: 29 NOV 1980 0133-EST
From: VAD at MIT-MC (Al Walker)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Apologies for the recent load of stuff that has reached you all
by mistake, through confusion about names.  The mail intended
for FERNS went to some user called SPACE at AI, and wound up going
to you also. Oh well.. this shouldn't happen again, if it does let me know.

In the meantime could I join your list?  What's it really about? 
Sounds interesting..  
Thanx,

Hobbit

30-Nov-80  0500	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To:   "@SPACE.DIS[SPA,OTA]" at SU-AI  

01-Dec-80  0500	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To:   "@SPACE.DIS[SPA,OTA]" at SU-AI  

02-Dec-80  0500	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 02 Dec 1980 0423-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Administrivia 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The reason that people have been getting empty digests is that no one has been
sending any mail.  Hopefully I have arranged for it to not send anything if
there is no mail at all.  The digest format problem should be cleared up by
this edition as well.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Dec-80  0500	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    2 Dec 1980 1738-EST
From:    HANS.MORAVEC at CMU-10A 
Subject: OTRAG back
To:      space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

excerpts from Dec 1, 1980 Avaiation Week and Space Technology p 18 - 20
 OTRAG LOCATES ROCKET TESTING ON LIBYAN SITE
	BRUSSELS - Privately financed low-cost rocket launch vehicle
program under development by West Germany's Orbital Transport und
Raketen Aktiengesellschaft (Otrag) has set up a launch and test site
in Libya where it has alraedy conducted three launches this year and
has a fourth  rocket launch test scheduled before January 1981.
	Otrag officials in Munich told AWST that the new launch facilities
were set up seven months ago about 600 m1. south of Tripoli in
the Sahara Desert after Libya's leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi agreed to
permit the privately run company to conduct rocket firings on Libyan
territory for no charge.
  ... article talks about the political problems that drove Otrag out of
Zaire in 1979 ...
   The test site is 1-3 km^2 with thousands of sq km of empty desert
all around.
	The Otrag program has to date in Libya lifted a payload of
512 kg. in a single stage suborbital rocket launch. Successful launches
this year at the Libyan site included three firings with a duration of
8 minutes for one launch.
	The fourth flight is scheduled to reach an altitude of 250-300 km
with a similar downrange distance as the other flights. The fourth launcher
will be 15 m in length, 12 m for fuel tanks, a 1 m payload and 2 m long
engines. The launcher will be powered by four clustered throttleable
kerosene/nitric acid engines producing 6,600 lb. of thrust each, with
engines engines seperately throttleable in response to signals from
an inertial platform in the upper stage.
   ...lots more background ...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Dec-80  0500	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  4 DEC 1980 0143-EST
From: SGR at MIT-MC (Stephen G. Rowley)
Subject: Looong message about cost to sync orbit.
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

This message is kind of long.  It also contains some math.  (if you passed
freshman mechanics, it should be no problem...)  Basically, it calculates
the energy costs of going to synchronous orbit.

The other day some one gave me some figures on the cost of boosting
one pound to LEO by various means (I have no idea about their accuracy):

	Saturn booster:  ~$2000/lb
	Shuttle		 ~$200 /lb
	HLLV		 ~$20  /lb

This got me to thinking:  what is the absolute CHEAPEST ticket I could
buy to see the building of SPS #47?  That is to say, does fundamental
physics impose any limits to the cost of getting to synchronous earth
orbit?

The only limit I was able to come up with was the cost of the energy
used in transportation.  So let's figure out the energy difference and
compare it with the cost of a kilowatt-hour of electricity:

Consider a spherical planet of radius R, mass M, rotational period w.
Add a particle of mass m at a distance from the center r, rotating
with period w.  It has 2 kinds of energy:  rotational and potential.
The rotational energy is given by

		1	2
	Erot = --  I  w       I = moment of inertia of particle
		2                    2
				= m r  for a reasonable sized ship.

Thus
		1     2  2
	Erot = --  m r  w					[1]
		2

The gravitational potential energy is given by

		   G M m
	Egrav = - -------
		     r

Since I never can remember the value of G, replace it by recalling the
weight at the surface of a planet is due to gravity:

	       G M m		       2
	m g = -------    ==>  G M = g R  
		  2
		 R

Thus		       2
		   g  R  m
	Egrav = - ---------					[2]
		      r

So the total energy per unit mass is

			     2
	E     1   2  2    g R
       --- = --- w  r  - -----					[3]
	m     2		   r

Now the fun starts:

1.) At the surface of the earth, r = R, so

	E         1   2 
       --- = R ( --- w  R - g)					[4]
	m         2

2.) At synchronous orbit, gravity provides the centripetal force, so

				2		       2
	   2      G M m      g R  m		3   g R
	m w  r = -------  = --------    ==>    r  = ---
		     2		2		      2
                    r	       r                     w

    Thus the energy per unit mass is


	E       1   /  2  4  2 \ 1/3      1     /  2  2   \ 1/3
       --- = - --- |  g  R  w   |    = - --- R |  g  w  R  |	[5]
	m       2   \          /          2     \         /

Thus we need only know the planet's radius, surface gravity, and
rotational period.  Both [4] and [5] yield negative numbers since
the particle is bound.

Now some numbers.  For the earth,

		     2			      6
	g = 9.8 m/sec   R = 6400 km = 6.4 x 10  m
	
	    2 pi     1 day                -5
	w = ----- ------------ = 7.28 x 10  /sec
	     day   86,400 sec

Thus
       2	      -2      2
      w  R = 3.39 x 10   m/sec    << g  (otherwise the planet falls apart!)

So the difference is

	 E |	    E |			   6
    d = ---|    -  ---|         = 61.7 x 10  joules/kg
	 m |        m |
	   |r=R	      |r=sync

But one kilowatt-hour is 3.6 megajoules, so d = 17.2 kw-hr/kg.  Electricity
here in Boston costs around 7 cents per kilowatt-hour, so this is equivalent
to $1.20/kg.  Allowing ~150 kg for me and my suitcases, this comes to $180.
I can't even fly home to Indiana for that...

You can look at this 2 ways:

1.) The pessimist: our technology is crude and primitive.
or
2.) The optimist: there's lots of room for research.

	-$teve

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Dec-80  0126	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  5 DEC 1980 0427-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject: Looong message about cost to sync orbit.
To: SGR at MIT-MC, SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

If you use Lunar materials it gets even cheaper.  And if you use
space-generated energy...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Dec-80  0501	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  6 Dec 1980 1147-EST
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: SPS automatic aiming
To: energy at MIT-MC, space at MIT-MC

	I've been doing some thinking about SPS automatic aiming and mutliple
targeting.

GLOSSARY:

power beam - a beam from a satellite to the ground that contains enough power
to be useful

pilot beam - a beam aimed at a satellite from the ground with the expectation
that the satellite will return a power beam

pilot source - a source of a pilot beam

reference beam - any beam whose purpose is to synchronize anything with its
phase.  A system may contain many power beams and pilot beams but only a small
fixed number of reference beams.

reference source - obvious

power reflector - a surface which receives pilot beams and on which each point
returns a much stronger version of the incident pilot beam, with the intention
that the combined wavefront formed by all of these amplified signal returns
will be a set of power beams

	A corner power reflector type of satellite will not direct a power
beam onto each pilot source.  A wavefront that diverges when it goes into a
corner reflector is still divergent when it comes out.
	A properly curved power reflector will form a clear image of pilot
beams at a proper distance and close to the optical axis of the reflector, but
I don't think any area bigger than New Jersey could be served by a single
satellite.  Aside from off-axis abberation, don't forget that the Earth curves
away from the point beneath the satellite.  Northern N. J. is 500KM further
from an SPS than Southern N. J.

	REM's idea to have each point of his power reflector negate the phase
of the pilot beam(s) at each point will work, but it has a couple of problems:
	1) the surface must be "optically" flat to 1/4 wavelength or better.
This is over an area of hundreds or thousands of square KM, even for the
extended destination version. Don't forget that space isn't quite perfect 0G
(lunar & solar tides, centrifugal force (the satellite rotates), solar wind,
an occasional grain of sand)
	2) The reference must be synchronous over the extent of the satellite.
I don't know enough relativity to know whether this is possible even in
principle.
	3) The power beam will hit where the pilot beam WAS .2 sec ago.
(Before you note that the Michelson-Moreley experiment indicates that the
Earth-Satellite's common motion cannot be detected, note that that only refers
to LINEAR motion, not the common ROTATION.)  The Earth rotates about the
satellite at about 1 KM/sec, so the aim will be about 200 meters "off".
Acceptable for a stationary receiver array - not for a plane or a car.

	My solution is a power hologram.  Steps:

	1) build a reference source at any convenient point on the Earth's
surface, aimed at the SPS.
	2) build any pilot beams you want
	3) at each point of the power reflector, send out radiation, in phase
with the REFERENCE SOURCE, if & only if the sum of the pilot beams received at
that point is more in phase with than out of phase with the reference beam.
	Holograms seem to work even when the film is developed for full
contrast (no gray), and whether negatives or positives are used.  It even
seems to reproduce gray tones.

	4) If we build a second reference, to be used in step 3, which is
located where the first reference WILL BE .2 seconds later, we even perform
"leading" on the targets.

	5) All beams, of course, have to be harmonics of the power beam
frequency.  I propose the second, third and fifth harmonics for reference,
secondary and pilot beams: not necessarily in that order.  Every other, third
and fifth cycle should be missing from the various beams.  Someone better
informed in microwave technology can probably come up with something better.
	Although my approach would waste half of the points of the power
reflector at any time, I suspect that each pof the elements would be cheaper
than one of REM's phase negating elements.

	By the way, the idea of a terrorist setting up a pilot beam is not
reasonable.  At proposed power beam densities, having a power beam aimed at
you for a long time would not meet Federal standards and probably has risks,
but if a terrorise says "do this or I will aim a power beam at New York for as
long as it takes you to find my clandestine pilot source" your response would
be: (yawn) so what?
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Dec-80  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  7 DEC 1980 1000-EST
From: OTA at MIT-MC (Owen T. Anderson)
Subject: SPS aiming
To: ENERGY at MIT-MC

    Date:    6 Dec 1980 2028-EST
    From:    HANS.MORAVEC at CMU-10A 

	  . . .
    	The velocity of a synchronous SPS with respect to the equator
    is 2.4 km/sec.  In the 1/4 second round trip the relative distance is
    600 meters.  At different latitudes the shift is different; there is
    none at the poles.  Actually the shift is different for different
    LONGITUDES as well.  Right under the satellite the relative motion is
    2.4 km/s parallel to the ground.  About 5000 km west, the satellite
    relative velocity vector is slightly greater in magnitude, but points
    directly towards the center of the earth!  A priori leading doesn't work
    except for very localized areas.

As I understand the definition of a geo-synchronous satellite it is a
satellite that is situated so that it has no motion with respect to the
equator (if it is in an equatorial orbit.  What are you people talking
about here?

------------------------------

Date:  7 DEC 1980 1214-EST
From: REM at MIT-MC (Robert Elton Maas)
Subject: SPS aiming
To: OTA at MIT-MC
CC: SPACE at MIT-MC

In the rotating frame of reference there is no relative motion, but
that isn't a newtonian frame so you can't use commonsense laws of
physics.  In a newtonian frame that is momentarily fixed with respect
to either the sattelite or the ground, there is a relative motion
(velocity) of the other.  This causes the transit-of-signal phenomen
where beaming a signal up and letting it return via what seems
at the reflector to be the same path turns out to strike a place
different from where it originally was beamed up.

I think HPM was wrong about velocity being zero at the poles.  In fact
the relative velocity is greatest at the poles because instead of
the instantaneous relative velocity being the difference between
the rotation speed of the Earth and the orbital speed of the satellite,
you have just the orbital speed of the satellite minus zero.  Also
the Earth is 4000 miles further away so the signal takes longer, making
the signal land even further away.

Note that I haven't taken into account general relativity due to
gravitation of the Earth and instantaneous rate of rotation of the
spacecraft.  My analysis is just based on Newtonian mechanics from
the frame of the satellite, or equivalently special relativity when
viewed from the ground (the satellite is foreshortened and time-skewed
causing it not to be a true corner reflector, but that analysis is
too messy so I prefer to use the satellite frame).


------------------------------

Date: 08 Dec 1980 0347-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Administrivia 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

This digest and those following it will be mailed out a 4AM pacific time
so as to further reduce day time or near daytime load on east coast systems.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Dec-80  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 09 Dec 1980 1548-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Spaceship watching 
To:   sf-lovers at MIT-MC, human-nets at MIT-MC,
      space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
CC:   minsky at MIT-AI, pourne at MIT-MC, OTA at SU-AI    


	Getting into Edwards AFB for the Space Shuttle Landing

	The Public Affairs Office at Edwards will be mailing out
"Shuttle passes" that allow the bearer to enter the gate with ONE
vehicle.  That vehicle may contain any number of people.  Passes
may be obtained by writing a letter to:

	NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
	Public Affairs Office
	P.O. Box 273
	Edwards, CA  93523

	If you are planning to charter a bus, you should tell them
how many buses will be in your party and the total number of people
in your letter.  They will get the appropriate pass(es) for you and
provide you with a Person to Contact when you arrive.

	Pass distribution will begin in February, and passes will
be sent out in the order that requests are received.  Approximately
30,000 passes are available (30,000 x 4 people per car is a LOT of
people!!!) and as of Dec 9 there were only 200 requests.  They
don't care as to corporate or academic affiliation for the most part.

	My partially reliable sources tell me that it will be HOT
on the tarmac so plan accordingly.

	Better information will follow as I get it.

-- Tom



------------------------------

Date: 10 DEC 1980 0052-EST
From: SGR at MIT-MC (Stephen G. Rowley)
Subject: analysis of SPS aiming "problem"
To: ENERGY at MIT-MC
CC: POURNE at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

There has been some confusion lately about remarks (due to HPM, I
think...) that a geosynchronous satellite moves with respect to
the equator, introducing an aiming problem, etc.  Perhaps this message
will be of help.

The problem basically comes down to the fact that both the satellite and
the rectenna are rotating, i.e., in a noninertial frame. The microwave photons,
however, could not care less about this-- they will propagate in a straight
line.  Thus, the target "moves out from under the beam".

More specifically:


Let Ve = velocity of the surface of the earth at the equator
    Vs = velocity of the satellite in synchronous orbit.

then  Ve = w Re   and Vs = w Rs where w  is the angular frequency of the
earth, Re is the radius of the earth, &  Rs is the radius of synchronous orbit.

Since these two velocities are in the same direction,  there is a velocity 
difference of

	dV = w ( Rs - Re )


               2 Pi
           = -------------  * (42,340 km - 6400 km)
               86,400 sec

           = 2.614 km/sec

The time it takes the microwave photons to propagate down to the rectenna
is given by


	dT = ( Rs - R )/c

           = (42,340km - 6400km)/ 300,000 km/sec
           = 0.1188 sec

During that time delay, the velocity difference between the satellite and
the surface builds up a distance of

	dS = Dv dT
	   = 2.614 km/sec 0.1188 sec
	   = 313 meters.

These are, I believe, the numbers Hans quoted.

Is this a "show-stopper?"  No more than a flying duck is to duck-hunting:
you simply have to lead your target a little, that's all.  We're all too
used to thinking of the velocity of light as infinite, so that when
effects like this show up over distances of orbital size, they are a bit
startling...

	Happy orbiting,

	$tev

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Dec-80  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 1980 1810-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Reagan and Space Policy
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF, others: ;

I just recieved the a letter from the L5 Society, part of which I
reproduce below:

				Alan

------------------
	To everyone who wants an expanded Space Program:

A massive letter-writing campaing is now underway to influence
the space policy of the Reagan Administration.  Since Reagan's
space policy is being formed now, now is the time to give your input.

We are asking each and every person who desires an expanded
American Space program to write a letter to President-elect
Reagan by March, 1981.  Besides stating your general interest
in a renewed space effort, we ask that your letter specifically
support the following two programs:

	1.  A permanently inhabited space station

	2.  Solar Power Satellites.

Your letter should not exceed one page in length and may be
as short as three senetences.  Send your letter to:

	before Jan. 20			After Jan. 20
Office of the President-elect		The White House
1726 M Street, NW			1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC  20270			Washington, DC  20500

This letter writing campaign was initiated by L-5 Society
Board of Directors member and famed author, Dr. Jerry Pournelle.
It is now being supported by a large coalition of space interest
groups and publications (including the letter-writing network
that successfully got the Space Shuttle re-named Enterprise).

....(there is more , but the important info is above--Alan)


Signed:
	Mark Hopkins
	Chairman, L-5 Society Legislative Action Committee

	David Brandt-Erichsen
	National Coordinator, L-5 Phone Tree



-------

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 1980 1807-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: See the first Space Shuttle Launch
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF, bboard at USC-ISIB, others: ;


If you are interested in seeing the first space shuttle launch and live
in California:


The Rockwell Management Association, Space Chapter, is pleased to announce
that arrangements are being concluded for a tour to view the first
launch of the Space shuttle currently scheduled for the March 10 to march
31 period.

Itinerary:
	Day 1 Depart Los angeles international Airport via regularly
		scheduled airlines for flight to Orlando

	Day 2  Welcome cocktail party from 5 pm to 6 pm.  Briefing
		on launch details.

	Day 3  Launch at Kennedy Space Center, Gala celebration this evening

	Days 4-6  Free days, can go to Disney World.  Also is a tour of
		  the space center.


This tour includes:
	Round trip Airfare
	5 nights hotel accomadations in Orlando
	All transfers to and from the airport and Kennedy Space Center
	     by deluxe motor coaches
	Cocktail party and gala celebration party
	Ticket book for Disney World
	Tour of Kennedy Space Center.

Total cost per person (double occupancy in hotel ) will be between 
$500 and $700 (my sources tell me $650).

If you are interested in reserving a place on this tour, send a 
$5 NON-REFUNDABLE deposit along with your name, business and home
addresses and telephone numbers to:

		Launch Tour Reservations
		c/o R. E. Wroble
		Rockwell International  Mail Code AA94
		12214 Lakewood Blvd.
		Downey, Ca.  90241

Make checks payable to NMA Rockwell, California Chapter.

For more information, contact R. E. (Dick) Wroble at (213)922-4635.


The above information is abstracted (not word for word) from a flyer
circulating at Rockwell.  Apparently you do not have to work for 
Rockwell to be on the tour, but they expect many more people will
want to go than they have room for (so if your interested, respond FAST).

The $5 initial deposit will be applied to your fare, but is not refundable
under any circumstances (such as the launch being postponed 2 years).  If
the launch gets postponed after the tour leaves for Florida, everyone is
out of luck, NO REFUNDS (of course).  When they determine the total cost
they will ask for $100 deposites  (should be sometime in Jan or early Feb).

BEWARE:  If you go on this trip, you will see the launch, but CANNOT see
the landing since you will not get back in time.  The reason for this is 
that if the launch gets postponed a few days, you will still be able to 
see it (if its more than a few days, your out of luck).

Please do NOT send questions to me, I don't know any more about this
than what I have already said.  I do not work at Rockwell, I just know
people who do.


					Alan

-------

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 1980 1804-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Space Shuttle Pre-Launch Schedule
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF


The following appeared in Rockwell's publication "Countdown"
dated Dec. 10, 1980

Columbia STS-1 Pre-Launch Milestones:

Start Shuttle interface test				Dec. 3-21
Start preparations for rollout and
	ordance installation				Dec. 21
Transfer(rollout) of mated Shuttle from
	VAB to Launch Complex 39A			Dec. 26
Rotating Service Structure positioned around
	Columbia					Dec. 29
Payload Bay access test					Jan. 4
Emergency Egress Test					Jan. 5
Mobile Launch Platform water flow test			Jan. 7
Main Propulsion System auto load and detank		Jan. 11
Hazardous fluid servicing				Jan. 17
STS-1 Mission Simulation (54.5 hours)
	Johnson Space Center				Jan 20-22
Readiness Review approval for Flight Readiness Firing	Jan 30
Start series of countdown demonstration test for
	flight readiness firing				Jan 31
Start Mission Verification test				Feb. 6
Flight Readiness Firing (20 seconds firing
	of all three main engines)			Feb. 7
Launch Verification Tests				Feb. 24-27
Start STS-1 Pre-launch countdown			March 9
STS-1 Launch						March 14



If all of the above take place sucessfully as scheduled, the launch
will be on March 14.  ( if you are interested in seeing the launch
and live in California, see next message).


			Alan
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Dec-80  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 1980 1316-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Pioneer-venus 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I went to a talk this morning about the Pioneer-venus mission.  I have heard
surprisingly little about it in the general media except for the Radar mapping
thing they completed recently.  Appearently the impetus for this talk is the
soon to be released, special edition, 800+ page, Journal of the Geophysical
review.  Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the journal so the above
title is an almost certainly wrong.  Question:  Does anyone know what the
real name of the journal is and how to get hold of that one issue.  I would
be interested in a copy if the price was "reasonable".



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Jan-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Administrivia:

Due the the SAIL file system crash just before christmas and my vacation at
about the same time the space mailing list has not been working since about
Dec 23.  Anything sent to the digest since about the 23rd may have been lost
though there isn't evidence of much activity.  Apologies if you have recieved
any of this before.
------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 1980 1316-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Pioneer-venus 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I went to a talk this morning about the Pioneer-venus mission.  I have heard
surprisingly little about it in the general media except for the Radar mapping
thing they completed recently.  Appearently the impetus for this talk is the
soon to be released, special edition, 800+ page, Journal of the Geophysical
review.  Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the journal so the above
title is an almost certainly wrong.  Question:  Does anyone know what the
real name of the journal is and how to get hold of that one issue.  I would
be interested in a copy if the price was "reasonable".



------------------------------

Date:  24 December 1980 03:00 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Long term projects????
To:  space at MIT-AI, energy at MIT-AI

The following is an excerpt from the Scientist of the Year Lecture
given by Jacob Rabinow at the National Bureau of Standards. It may
offer an insight into some of the problems associated with large
projects.

   = = = = = = = = =

    ... And talking about vulgarities brings me to another subject that
I was going to touch upon today but only for a short time. That is the
fact that most of the management of our largest commercial and
industrial empires is not, technically speaking, quite vulgar. We have
people who are bookkeepers, accountants, or "bean counters" running
tremendous empires, and because they can only understand money, they
take a short-term view.
    I used to think that they take the view expressed by the words:
"What will be the bottom line next year?" I was told by several people
that this is a little optimistic. They like to know the profit picture
every three months, by quarterly reports. If the quarterly reports show
that you are not making money they fire you, and if you are making
money, they promote you. In either case, you will not be there a couple
of years from now, so why bother to plan for the future?

     - - - - - - End of quoted text - - - - - -

     One of the theoretical advangates of capitalism is diversity. If
eighteen different people set out to solve the same problem, they will
very likely pick eighteen different methods. The ones that pick
workable methods will get rich and the other will go broke, thus the
good methods survive and get propagated. Just like evolution.

     Currently, just about every major business in the country is run
by managers trained in a particular set of methods. These are the
managements techniques as taught by the Harvard Business School and
Stanford. Because of the prestige of these two schools, almost every
other business school teaches very similar things. Because managers
hire other managers, there is a string prejudice towards hiring people
trained in these familiar techniques. So, we have every major business
run by basically the same methods.

     If this set of methods is defective, and I believe that it is, it
could damage EVERY business in the country. Furthermore, since the
methods taught include the methods for evaluating the success of the
methods, and since everyone is using the same methods, you can't
discover the failure either by internal techniques or by comparison
with other businesses in the country.

     I suspect that most of us lack the business administration
training necessary to fully appreciate the following story. I know I
do.

     Suppose that Earth is contacted by Aliens.  They make us a very
interesting offer.  They will give us unlimited energy sources, space
travel, full access to their technology and that of all of the
civilizations in the Galaxy.  This will end material and energy
shortages, remove all medical problems, and in general free us from all
material wants.  There is only one catch: At the end of 1000 years,
every then living member of the human race will be painlessly rendered
sterile.

     Our scientists examine samples of their records and devices, and
use the Alien's communication systems to check out their references
with other civilizations. The conclusion is that the Aliens are quite
capable of doing exactly what they say, and in all known past dealings
that anyone has had with this race, their word has been good.

     Question: Should we accept their offer? Justify you answer using a
standard cost-benefit analysis.

     I have put this question to several business types. I have yet to
find anyone who would accept the offer, nor have I found anyone who
could tell me why not.

     If the analysis techniques taught to most managers would cause
them to accept this offer, what does this say about other decisions
made using the same tools? And consider that the tools are the same in
almost all businesses.

------------------------------

Date:  7 January 1981 0438-EST (Wednesday)
From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60)
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Subject:  self sustaining micro ecologies
CC: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A

From the Games section of the January 1981 Omni, p117:

... Another runner-up prize went to Glenn Jenkins, of Kent,
Washington, who asked for a self-contained and
self-sustaining environment of living things, plant and
animal, that would last long enough to prove that a life
cycle had developed.  We learned later that this goal has
already been reached.  Roger James Malyk, a teacher at the
Centennial Regional High School, in Greenfield Park,
Quebec, wrote to say that his school has FOUR such
ecosystems that are air- and watertight and totally
self-supporting.  The oldest is eight years old.  "They
contain abundant plant life and a variety of insect
species," Malyk writes.  "Sunlight is the only form of
direct energy input, and the plants and animals reproduce
themselves and have balanced themselves in terms of
population size and food supply."  We have decided to let
Jenkins keep his $25.  ...

------------------------------

Date:  7 January 1981 2026-EST (Wednesday)
From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60)
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Subject:  lots of science for sterilization in 1000 years

I'd jump at the offer. With all that science there would
be a billion alternatives to keep the race (probably in
non-biological form by then) going. Heck, we have them now.

This is a special case of the general rule that planning
for the real long term at the expense of the immediate future
is usually a ridiculous idea in circumstances that evolve
unprdictably. Your model of the future is certainly wrong,
and any plans you make are certainly inappropriate, and no better
than random choices. If the plans cause you to lose in the
short run, and gain nothing in the long run, you lose.

Would it have been better if the users of whale oil for
home lighting in the 19th century had conserved it for us, their
descendents, 100 years in the future and incidentally deprived
us of the scientific developments which were undoubtedly
accelerated by the availability of late night light?

	Quarterly accounting is obably too frequent,
five year plans may be ok, inflexible twenty year plans
are a menace.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Jan-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  9 Jan 1981 0248-EST
From: HEDRICK at RUTGERS
Subject: your story
To: schauble.multics at MIT-MULTICS, space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

As a former professor of management science, I do have the business
administration training to fully appreciate the story.

The usual way of computing costs (and benefits) is to take an integral
over time of the cost and/or benefit, multiplied by an exponentially
decaying weighting factor.  The exponential weight results in a finite
value for this integral even when it is done to positive infinity.  Thus
1000 years of benefits can outweigh costs occuring from 1000+ to
infinity.  The classical way to handle that particular calculation would
be to take the benefits over the first 1000 years and compare it with
the costs of having humanity end thereafter.  This would be an
opportunity cost, i.e. a set of benefits that might have happened but
would not because no one would be there.  Whether the net effect would
be positive or negative would of course depend upon the relative values
you assigned to the benefits and costs.  The reason that the story makes
a good joke is because one knows that with any reasonable coefficient
for the exponential, the weight applied to the period from 1000+ to
infinity would be so small that the weighted benefits would swamp the
weighted costs enormously.  But one feels intuitively that this is
the wrong result.

The message from Hans Moravec gave an excellent summary of why that
particular mode of cost/benefit analysis is used.  Basically, the future
is so uncertain that we want to discount it in our planning.  Some
people use arbitrary time horizons such as 5 years in planning,  but an
exponentially decaying weight seems somehow more elegant (and for
financial issues has the advantage that it meshes with the way interest
and discounting works).  However everyone who teaches these things
realizes that all methods of this sort have their limits.  I can tell
you from experience that our students often do not gain as good an
appreciation for the exact nature of the limits (despite what we may try
to do in class).  However they typically have a reasonable intuition,
and in fact in this case the people the author talked to did seem to
realize that their usual methods did not apply.  I do not think you
would have gotten a very different answer had you asked a  bunch of
engineers whether they would apply their usual techniques in some absurd
situation.  They would know that it was absurd, but I would not be
surprised if they couldn't tell you (at least not immediately) exactly
what assumptions of their methods were being violated.

I claim that the basic problem with this is that a case has been
constructed where exponentially decaying weights may not be appropriate.
They are used for two different reasons, depending upon the type of item
being analyzed:
  - for money, on short and medium time horizons, exponential weights
	are appropriate because by using banks, loans, bonds, stocks,
	and investments, we can really  interchange N dollars now with N
	* exp (aT) dollars at time T.  But this assumes the continued
	existence of the financial system.  So for example if you were
	contemplating a decision that would cause the collapse of the
	western world, you might well not use the normal techniques of
	analysis.  I suspect there may be techniques for dealing with
	this sort of case, but I don't know what they are, and I suspect
	your usual Harvard MBA doesn't either.
  - for other things, one uses decaying weights to approximate the fact
	that we simply aren't interested in taking into account
	consequences beyond a certain time period.  I will not repeat
	the excellent justifications for this given by my colleague from
	CMU.  However mathematics is simply a tool to help you do what
	you want.  If you don't want to ignore the future, don't use
	that particular tool.  I claim that the example here is one
	where you would not want your weights to decay to almost nothing
	by time 1000.  Usually you say to yourself, "Well, I really have
	little idea what things are going to be like 1000 years from
	now, but no doubt folks will muddle through somehow.  The impact
	of my decision will probably have decayed to under the noise
	level by then, and I really can't tell what it would be anyway."
	But it is clear that in this particular case, you can tell what
	the impact is going to be 1000 years from now and your decision
	will not have decayed to the noise level.  Of course you also
	have to decide whether you care what happens to people 1000
	years from now.  If not, you may allow the exponential to take
	its course. (Or if you buy Moravec's argument that even in this
	case you can't tell what the consequences are going to be in
	1000 years.)

So I argue that there is ample reason to think that conventional
cost-benefit analysis would not lead anyone to wrong conclusions for
this case, if the person realizes that there are limits to them
assumptions on which it is based.

There is an additional issue lying behind here that some people might
think is relevant.  One hears many flames that cost-benefit analysis
can't handle non-monetary items.  I also wish that I had a better way to
handle non-monetary items.  But I think reducing them to dollars is
probably about the best we can do, if we want to try to do any analysis
at all.  Most decisions for which this sort of analysis is done involve
comparing costs and benefits of many different kinds.  It is not just
apples and oranges, but apples, oranges, peanuts, Kiwi fruit, etc.  You
might argue that some sort of intuitive process should be used that
considers all of the consequences as discrete things, rather than
reducing them to dollars.  But when there are thousands of consequences,
I think it is clear that the mind simply can't think of them at the same
time.  At this point I don't see what you can do other than reduce them
to some common framework.  This is where utility theory comes in.  It
shows that it does make sense to think of all costs and benefits as
being gains and losses of a single quantity, "utility".  Dollars are as
good a unit as any in which to measure it.  These mathematical models
also provide some intriguing ways to measure the utility associated with
various things (e.g. there are ways to measure implicitly the value a
person places on his life, e.g. by seeing how much extra pay people need
to get them to take dangerous jobs).  Now anyone who knows the
mathematics knows how tenuous the assumptions are on which it is based.
On the other hand, they seem to have a certain plausbility, and I don't
know of any better way to compare apples and oranges.  As long as
decisions of this sort have to be made, I think it is instructive at
least to look at that sort of analysis.  If nothing else, they make
people realize what tradeoffs they are making.  The American people
clearly do not want to have infinitely expensive cars to gain epsilon in
safety. They really do want safety and money to be traded off, and it is
well to force people to come to grips with how that tradeoff is to be
made.  A friend of mine worked for some time applying utility theory to
medical decisions in life-threatening situations.  It is clear that the
net effect of his work was to take seriously what the patient thought
was important, and to get him involved in setting priorities.  The
alternative is to accept the naive view that human life is infinitely
important, and that everything else should be sacrificed to keep a body
breathing.  Indeed the usual alternative to cost-benefit analysis seems
to be to pick some single aspect of the situation, and allow it to
dominate everything else.  (What else could you do? - you can't really
deal with them all.)
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Jan-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  9 Jan 1981 (Friday) 0947-EDT
From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus)
Subject: Space-Shuttle
To:   space at MIT-MC

Begin forwarded messages

Date:  9 Jan 1981 (Friday) 0943-EDT
From: PATTI (Tony Patti)
Subject: Quote from Time Magazine, 12-Jan-80 p. 10 u may enjoy:
To: @HOT.MAI[4000,42]:


The Space Shuttle "is controlled by more than 600,000 lines of

exquisitely precise program code."


[End forwarded messages]


------------------------------

Date: 09 Jan 1981 1145-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Public support for space
To:   space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

8 Jan 81
By FRANCIS X. CLINES
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    WASHINGTON - The nation's space program Wednesday received $60,000
in donations from 10,000 individuals concerned that the Viking robot
is still working busily on Mars but that space scientists have been
too financially pressed to listen to it.
    ''Why on earth do we want to give money to the government?'' came
the rhetorical question from Stan Kent, a 25-year-old space scientist
who helped to organize the Viking charity when he realized that the
space program was ebbing in public interest and political priority.
    ''Our message is hands off the space program if you want to cut the
budget,'' he replied, as he handed the $60,000 check to government
officials and promised at least $40,000 more to continue scientists'
four-year-old Viking watch.
    The money was accepted at the National Air and Space Museum in a
small, quiet ceremony that seemed poignant for some of the veterans
from the space program's heyday a decade ago.
    Although the amount of money was relatively small, the officials
appreciated Kent's resolve to see a revival of space exploration.
''The Apollo generation is coming of age,'' said Kent.
    He was thanked by Dr. Robert A. Frosch, the administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, who must decide what
to do with the Viking robot, which could opirate through the end of
this century, even if its messages are no longer full of surprises.
The space agency already has shut down some non-stop moon probes
because it could not afford to pay attention to their signals, and a
similar fate threatens the Mars robot.
    Wednesday's donation will provide at least two additional months of
study and analytical reports on data from the Viking 1 lander, which
was the first spacecraft to undertake detailed scientific studies on
the surface of another planet. Even though its soil scooper is no
longer used, the robot has been automatically sending photographic
and other information to Eartx every 37 days since it landed July 20,
1976.
    ''We really don't expect some big discovery,'' said George E.
Cranston, executive secretary of the American Astronautical Society,
a professional group that helped to organize the fund. ''But if you
think about it, you have something almost alive up there - on Mars -
and it keeps handing out signals. It kind of appeals to the
imagination.''
    The ceremony was next to a full-size model of the Viking, an
insectlike craft, six feet high and 10 feet wide on its struts,
displayed under the suspended Spirit of St. Louis monoplane.
    After gazing at the craft as if it were a modern sculpture, the
assemblage tended to gather at a wheeled cart with coffee urns,
stacked cups and donuts that seemed an earthly parody of the Viking.
Outside in the snow, tourists pressed against the museum's large
windowed wall, trying to figure out the transaction.
    After the space program's more spectacular events, people have
occasionally sent a few dollars to show their support, government
officials said. But Wednesday's touch of charity was unusual in this
city where money is normally extracted by taxation. The gift was
described by Noel Hinners, the museum director and a veteran of the
space program, as ''a true historic event.''
    
nyt-01-08-81 1652est
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Jan-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 JAN 1981 1712-EST
From: REM at MIT-MC (Robert Elton Maas)
Subject: [OTTO at WHARTON-10 (George Otto): Thought for the Day!]
To: Geoff at DARCOM-KA
CC: ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

Re the claim that SPS would allow big companies to "own the sun",
thus anybody for SPS is taking energy at all costs including giving
a big company a monopoly on the sun.  (Pre-summary, that claim is absurd.)

I hope we don't allow mining claims on solar energy without first
the claiming company establishing a reasonable stakeout.  Like in
the early days of this country when you had to stake a claim on
a particular place, not just on "all the land West of the Mississippi River",
if a company establishes a station fixed in space it should be able to claim
rights to incident radiation, recovering for damages if somebody puts
a newer satellite between the sun and the existing station thus blocking
off solar radiation from the existing station or the immediate vicinity
which has been rightfully claimed for expansion.  If the company tries
to stake too large a claim it should be challanged, like perhaps 20
years of expansion from a given staked-out site should be reasonable,
thus if a company wants 5 different claims it would have to put up
5 different satellites and would thus get a reasonable amount of
guaranteed sunlight around each of those 5 satellites, but the
claim would become void if after 20 years that company hadn't
actually gobbled down a reasonable percentage of all sunlight
falling in each of the claimed areas.  Perhaps some reasonable
size of claim could be defined, like 5 miles in all directions
from the stakeout station.  If a company wants bigger claims,
it would need to post multiple stations spaced about 10 miles
apart filling the area staked out (area, not volume, since we're
claiming the cone extending from the sun through the area and
out into space), or post a station closer to the sun (which is
more difficult due to both heating of sun and orbital mechanics).

Using such a policy, it would be impossible during the next 40
years for all of mankind to stake out a total of .000001 of the
total sun's output, not to mention one company getting a monopoly
like anything near .500000 of sun's output.  The mad dash to
grab significant fractions of sun's output would come a century
from now when lots of life is out there forming a Dyson sphere.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 1981 17:16 PST
From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: The Planetary Society (and other space advocacy groups)

I recently received the first issue of the Planetary Society
newletter.  I don't have it in front of me, but basically it's
a very slickly-produced glossy magazine of about 16 pp., which
I would guess will come out every couple of months.  The level
of writing seems to be for the scientifically-aware layman.

I believe OMNI will shortly be publishing a list with addresses
of all the major space-advocacy groups.  In brief:

Planetary Society: aimed at increasing popular support for planetary
   exploration.  Principal people are Carl Sagan and Bruce Murray.

L5 Society: primary thrust is space colonization, as inspired by
   Gerard K.  O'Neill, with space industrialization as a more
   immediate focus.  Publishes "L5 News", a small, semi-technical
   magazine, every month or two.

National Space Institute: founded by Werner von Braun, now headed by
   Hugh Downs.  Intended to be a popular space-advocacy group with
   the broadest possible base.  Originally they had a very juvenile,
   "gee-whiz" newletter, but they are finally coming around to the
   point of doing a very professional job of lobbying and tracking
   Congress.

Space Studies Institute: Gerry O'Neill's organization.  No slick
   newsletters, just a four-page activity summary once or twice a
   year.  Members' money goes directly toward the support of his mass
   driver and related work.

British Interplanetary Society: the oldest and most scientifically
   respected organization devoted exclusively to space.  Their
   magazine "Spaceflight" provides the most complete, widely-
   available archive of satellite launches and background on space
   programs of all nations.  A particularly good source for analysis
   of the Soviet space program.  JBIS is a scientific journal they
   publish.  Their recent Project Daedalus produced a fascinating,
   detailed engineering design for an interstellar space probe.

American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA):
   The princial American professional society for aerospace
   engineers.  While not strictly a space advocacy group like
   the above, they have published some fascinating engineering
   studies in their monthly magazine, "Aeronautics and Astronautics".

I've been involved with both the Chicago Society for Space
Settlement (independent, but works closely with SSI), and the
Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and
Settlement (OASIS - LA L5), and have been deeply impressed by
the commitment and the professionalism of the people involved.
L5, in particular, has many local chapters, involved in such
things as public education and small-scale engineering studies.
A committee from OASIS recently completed an engineering study
on using Space Shuttle external tanks as units of a space
station, using available innovative technologies such as space-
filling foam.

--Bruce

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Jan-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 1981 0047-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: External tank habitat study
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

Correction:  The study to design a space habitat using the shuttle external
tank was not done by OASIS but by a group called Space Systems Development
Group (SSDG). (though all of the SSDG members are OASIS members and the 
ideas was first presented at an OASIS meeting).  The basic idea is to use
the external tanks, and prefab "inflatable" interiers made of a foam that 
expands when hit with microwaves, to create living space for about 200 people.

The cost of such a habitat would be about the same as current designs to 
produce a 6 man habitat not using the external tanks.  The concept is very
interesting and SSDG has published their study which includes some very
good artwork (many of them are architects so they know how to draw).  

If you would like a copy of the study, you can get one by sending $10.00
to:

			S.S.D.G
			136 So. Virgil Ave.  #310
			Los Angeles, Ca.  90004

Ask for the ET Habitability Study.  Its well worth the price.



					Alan
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Jan-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 1981 1457-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Now that you mention the shuttle, several related questions come to mind. 
To:   space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC


1)  Has NASA seen the light WRT taking the shuttle tanks all the way to
    LEO instead of throwing them away 5% (or whatever) short of orbit?

2)  Has anyone heard who slated for head of NASA in the Reagan administration?

3)  Will the first flight have any means of checking the tile shield for
    integrity once in orbit but before reentry?

4)  If the answer to the previous question is yes, consider the following
    horrible situation:  Shuttle launches without too much trouble but
    after arriving in orbit they discover that a whole patch of tiles
    was ripped away and there is virtually no chance of the shuttle surviving
    reentry.  As I understand it they are not bringing along a tile repair
    kit on the first (several?) mission.  What do they do?  They have at least
    3 days to stew about it, then what?  Does anyone know what the plans for
    this sort of a scenario are?

5)  Related to the above question, are they bringing along on the first
    mission a space suit?  It seems that this would be invaluable for in orbit
    repair.  The tile problem is just the most publicized of the possible
    external problems.

6)  Will the astronauts be able to enter the payload bay on the first mission?
    Is it pressurized?

I would appreciate answers to these questions if anyone has them.
		Thanks,
		Ted Anderson



------------------------------

Date: 15 JAN 1981 0353-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject: [OTTO at WHARTON-10 (George Otto): Thought for the Day!]
To: REM at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

Dyson spheres in 100 years?  Phil Morrison told Carl Sagan and
Bruce Murray at the "Saturn and the Mind of Man" sumposium that
"the protons will decay first" before we build Dyson spheres.
	I suspect that 100 years is a bit optimistic, but closer
to truth than Morrison.
	Unless, of course, the Black Box people have their way;
after all, Sagan and Murray used the "Saturn Symposum" as a
forum to badmouth the Apollo program...

------------------------------

Date: 15 JAN 1981 0357-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject: The Planetary Society (and other space advocacy groups)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC, Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC

	List of space organizations was well done, but
unfortunately left out:

	American Astronautical Society (AAS)
	which stands somewhere between L-5 and AIAA in
"far-outedness". Although I am a member, In confess I don't
recall whether AAS insists on all grades of members having
professional qualifications (there are at least three grades).
	JEP

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Jan-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 1981 1356-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: answers toOTA
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

1.    NASA does not now have any plans to put the tanks in orbit, but maybe
  we can convince them otherwise.

2.    I heard that Hans Mark (previous head of Ames research center and Sec. of
   the Air Force) was to be head of NASA  (rumor only)

3.  They will not be checking the tiles, which is why they are not bringing
  a repair kit.  If some come off, we will find out about it when then try
  to land.  The rational is that EVA to check the tiles introduces more risk
  than its worth.


					Alan
-------

------------------------------

Date: 15 January 1981 22:10-EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <dlw at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPACE Digest
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

About the space shuttle, the story I get is that they are definitely
taking space suits some time, as there are planned EVAs.  With slightly
less certainty on the part of my source, the general plan is to always
have space suits for the crew, but that when there are a lot of
passengers there will not be room, so for each passenger (presumably
with spares) there will be a cute little device which is basically a
balloon that you get inside (you have to scrunch).  I don't know about
the other questions.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Jan-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: MARG@MIT-AI
Date: 01/17/81 16:06:09
Subject: Emergency Spacesuits

MARG@MIT-AI 01/17/81 16:06:09 Re: Emergency Spacesuits
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Indeed, DLW is right about the little  balloons. At least, when I took  at
tour of Johnson Space center last March, they had pictures of 39" zippered
balls that the passengers were to be put in and transportd across  (space)
to the rescue vehicle.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Jan-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 1981 1133-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  
Subject: 3 stage version of Interim Upper Stage scrubbed

n028  1033  18 Jan 81
BC-ROCKET
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has
notified Congress that because of excess costs and technical problems
it plans to discontinue development of a new rocket system for
launching planetary spacecraft from aboard the space shuttle,
replacing it with a modified version of the proven Centaur rocket.
    Dr. Robert A. Frosch, the space agency administrator, said that the
decision would mean another delay, from 1984 to 1985, in the
launching schedule for the Galileo mission to orbit Jupiter and
deploy an instrumented probe into the Jovian atmosphere. Under the
new schedule, the spacecraft would not reach Jupiter until late 1987.
    Dr. Frosch said that the schedule change would add extra costs, as
yet undetermined, to the Galileo project. Officials at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., which manages the project,
said the increase could be as much as $75 million above Galileo's
current cost estimates of $650 million.
    This would be in addition to the costs of converting the Centaur
rockets for operation from the shuttle.
    Centaurs have been used since the mid-1960s as an upper stage in
rockets launched from the Earth, particularly those carrying large
communications satellites into a high orbit of the Earth and sending
Viking spacecraft to Mars and Voyagers to the outer planets. But
launching Centaurs from the cargo bay of the shuttle will to be a
technological challenge because the rocket's liquid hydrogen
propellant must be maintained at super-cold temperatures.
    The Centaurs are produced by the General Dynamics Corporation under
the direction of NASA's Lewis Research Center in Cleveland.
    Because the re-usable shuttle is limited to flight in low Earth
orbit, spacecraft to be launched from its cargo bay and sent to
higher altitudes or to other planets must receive an added boost from
an attached rocket. The shuttle itself is running about three years
behind schedule; its first orbital test flight is now expected to get
under way in late March or April.
    The rocket system being discontinued is a three-stage solid-fueled
booster called the Interim Upper Stage, which was under development
for the space agency by the Boeing Co. The action does not affect the
two-stage version of the same system, which is being built for the
Air Force to use in launching its communications and surveillance
satellites from the shuttle.
    But Air Force officials, concerned about delays in the two-stage
version as well, have indicated that they may be forced to extend the
production of Titan 3 rockets as backups in case either the space
shuttle or the Interim Upper Stage vehicles encounter further delays.
    The NASA decision and its effect on Galileo and possibly other
projects was seen as confirming the worst fears of those who had
criticized the agency for its failure to allow for backup rocket
systems to be kept in production while awaiting the shuttle.
    Dr. Bruce C. Murray, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said
that this was ''a sharp break from the practice of the l960s and
1970s.'' The reason for ''our present dilemma,'' Dr. Murray added, is
that the Titan-Centaur rockets were not kept in production until it
was certain that the space shuttle and its accompanying interim
rocket systems were ready for operation.
    
nyt-01-18-81 1330est
***************



------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 1981 2355-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Voyager pictures   
To:   sf-lovers at MIT-AI
CC:   space at MIT-MC


The following is from MSK at SAIL.  I thought it would be of interest
to you all.  -  jpm



	  New from the Astronomical Society of the Pacific

	   PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE VOYAGER/SATURN ENCOUNTER

    In keeping with  its goal to  provide its members  and the  public
with  authoritative   information  concerning   new  developments   in
astronomy, the A.S.P. is pleased to announce the availability of  sets
of prints  and  slides  of  Saturn, its  rings,  and  its  satellites,
selected from the  images returned by  the Voyager spacecraft.   These
photographs  have  been  chosen  for  both  their  visual  impact  and
scientific importance.  Detailed  captions and  information about  the
mission accompanies each set.
    Prints are  8 X  10 PHOTOGRAPHIC  prints (four  in color,  one  in
black-and-white  in  each  set)  carefully  produced  from   originals
provided by NASA's Jet  Propulsion Laboratories.  Slides are  standard
35mm format,  carefully reproduced  to bring  out the  subtle  details
captured by Voyager's cameras.


			PRINTS

	Saturn System Collage -- full color dramatic 8 X 10 montage of
the Saturn  system, assembled  from  the best  Voyager images  of  the
planet and 5 of its satellites.  $2.65 each.

	Print Set I -- Saturn and Its Rings.  $10.60 per set.

1.  Color.  A full view of Saturn and its ring system from 18 million km
    as Voyager approached.
2.  Color.  Sweeping close-up of the ring system against the limb of the
    planet.
3.  Color.  Saturn casts a dramatic shadow on its rings in a view from
    the departing spacecraft.
4.  Color.  False color enhancement of the ring system as seen from
    underneath.
5.  B&W.  Detailed close-up of the ring system, showing more than 90
    individual ringlets.

	Print Set II -- Saturn and Its Satellites.  $10.60 per set.

6.  Color.  Saturn, its rings, the ring shadows, Tethys, and Dione as seen
    from 13 million km.
7.  Color.  Dione, crossing the clouds of Saturn, shows its two different
    hemispheres.
8.  Color.  Close-up of Dione showing impact craters and fault line.
9.  Color.  A false-color close-up of the various layers in the atmosphere
    of Titan.
10. B&W.  Close view of Mimas, showing its huge impact crater.

			SLIDE SET

	Slide Set -- Saturn, Rings, and Satellites.  $13.78 per set.

1.-10.  The ten images from above.
11.  Color.  False-color image of Saturn and its rings, designed to bring
     out details in the bands of the planet's upper atmosphere.
12.  Color.  Close-up of Saturn's cloud deck.
13.  Color.  False-color enhancement of Saturn's northern hemisphere,
     showing belts and weather systems.
14.  Color.  Color-enhanced view of the rings from beneath.
15.  B&W.  Close-up of the "braided" F ring.
16.  B&W.  A sequence of photos showing the spokes in the B ring.
17.  B&W.  Mosaic of surface of Rhea.
18.  B&W.  Saturn-facing side of Tethys with its large valley.
19.  B&W(?).  Iapetus with its two very different faces.
20.  B&W(?).  S 11, one of the newly-discovered co-orbiting satellites, and
     the shadow cast on it by a previously unknown ring.


	Please note that, except for the collage of the Saturn system,
neither prints  nor  slides  are  available singly  --  they  MUST  BE
PURCHASED IN SETS.  Prices above include 6% tax, but do not include a
$1.50 Handling and Postage charge on each order.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

    I intend to send in an order on Jan 30.  If you want to make up  a
pool order  (to  split  the  handling  and  postage  charge)  mail  to
CSD.MSK@SU-SCORE.  If enough people  want individual photos, it  might
also be possible to split a set.   I assume that slides number 19  and
20 are B&W, since the flyer didn't specify.
    Note: I'll need the  money from you before  the order is sent,  so
that I won't be  broke for the 4-6  week delivery time.  The  handling
and postage charge will be split proportionately after all orders  are
in (i.e.  the  bigger your order,  the greater the  percentage of  the
shipping charge that you'll pay).  Checks may be sent to me through ID
mail (to Michael Kenniston, Computer Science Dept, Margaret Jacks Hall
420), or you can put  them in the "K" mailbox  on the second floor  of
Jacks, or drop them off at Jacks 420 in person.  If you prefer to send
in your own order for any reason, stop by my office and you can  Xerox
my order form.  (Call first to make sure somebody's there:  497-2513.)



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Jan-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 JAN 1981 0437-EST
From: OTA at MIT-MC (Owen T. Anderson)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Date:  20 January 1981 03:24 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Clipping Service - Solar power satellite-power conversion
To:  energy at MIT-AI, space at MIT-AI

The November 20 issue of Electronic Data News (EDN) contains an article
on a new version of klystron tube the performs a direct conversion from
light to microwaves. The article is too long and too technical to
transcribe, so I will summarize.

    The "photoklystron" is being developed by Dr John Freeman and his
research team at Rice University in Houston Texas. The device is
derived from a reflex klystron by substituting  a photocathode for the
normal thermonic cathode. This removes the need for a cathode heater,
leaving only bias power (a few microwatts) required. Their present
experimental model works in the range of 5 to 240 MHz with a conversion
efficiency of about 1%. They forsee operation at higher frequencies and
with conversion efficiencies up to about 6%. For comparison,
high-quality solar cells driving high-efficiency microwave tubes can
achieve efficiencies of 9 to 12%. However, the photoklystron's
simplicity, small size, high reliability, and potentially very low cost
may outweigh the lower efficiency

    The device was specifically designed for use in the Solar Power
Satellite project sponsored by NASA and the Dept of Energy. The NASA
Lewis Research Center has funded a large part of the design, with ITT
fabricating test units.


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Jan-81  0421	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 1981 0054-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a004  2146  22 Jan 81
AM-Rocket Accident, 1st Ld - Writethru, a620,240
Eds: Subs 1st graf to change rammed to hit, subs 2nd graf to CORRECT
that whole rocket cost $17 million and subs 6th graf to CORRECT that
door didn't fall.
Rocket Knocked Into Tower During Assembly Accident
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - A launch tower door hit a Delta rocket
being prepared for launch Thursday, knocking the rocket from its
upright position, officials said. No one was hurt.
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration spokesmen said the
damage was ''considerable,'' but had not been assessed. Delta rockets
cost $17 million in 1977.
    The rocket, owned by McDonnell Douglas Corp., was being prepared for
a March 12 launching of a weather satellite. The accident at 10:25
a.m. EST had no connection with the space shuttle, the first reusable
U.S. spacecraft, which is scheduled for its maiden launch March 17
from another pad here.
    ''Officials don't know how much damage has been done, and nobody
knows whether the launch will have to be delayed,'' said NASA
spokesman Hugh Harris.
    The rocket's first stage and inter-stage had been set up on the
launch pad earlier this week, and the first of nine solid fuel
boosters used for the launch were placed in a sling inside the mobile
launch pad tower, officials said.
    As the tower moved into position to install the booster, a large
door struck the Delta, officials said.
    The moving tower pushed the Delta several feet from its upright
position and pulled free two of the three bolts that hold the rocket
to the launch pad, they said. The Delta tilted back into the tower and
was left leaning into it, they said.
    
ap-ny-01-23 0046EST
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Jan-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 1981 1437-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Shuttle Budget
To:   space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

Quote from Aviation Week & Space Technology   - Jan 26, 1981

	"White House Office of Management and Budget Director David Stockman
	declared himself a supporter of the space shuttle program last week,
	a switch from March, 1980, when 56 members of the House calling 
	themselves the Coalition for Fiscal Responsibility recommended a 
	$301-million cut in the shuttle.  The coalition was headed by then
	Rep. Stockman and Rep Phil Gramm (D.-Tex).  Stockman told the
	National Press Club there would be ``no major reductions'' because
	the shuttle program is an ``important investment'' and a ``boost to
	the economy''.  However, Stockman added, he will have his budget 
	cutting scissors out for ``deferrals, waste and low-priority programs''
	in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."

End quote.

	My sources tell me that Stockman has been somewhat of a freind to
the space program for a while now, but feels that there is not much support
from the public.  If anybody wants to write him to convey their feelings
to him, his address is:
 
	David Stockman
	Director of the Office of Management and Budget
	Old Executive Office Building
	17th and Pennsylvania Streets, NW
	Washington, DC 20503
 



------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 1981 1438-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Puzzling item on Shuttle checklist
To:   space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

In reading through the Jan 26 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology
we came across a pre-launch checklist for the Shuttle.  The list include
the typical sorts of things that you would expect (Flight readiness engine
firing, Thermal protection system inspection, Shuttle systems test, etc.)
but the last item on the list is (and I quote):
	"Installation of ordnance."
Does anyone have an idea as to what this may be?



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Jan-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Administrivia:

It occurs to me that many of the people who have been with this list from
the beginning are unaware of the existence or whereabouts of the archives.
The file SPACE.LOG[SPA,OTA] @ SU-AI contains all the messages sent to the
mailing list.  The file can b FTP from Sail without an accout, but if you
have any trouble send me a message (OTA@SAIL).

At some as yet undetermined point in the future I will move some of the
older messages to an archival location off the net.  This is to avoid
excessive disk storage load on SAIL which has chronic problems along these
lines (doesn't everyone?).  Anyway if you discover that the message you
are looking for doesn't seem to be in the log send me a message and I will
retrieve the older log files for you.  At the moment all the files are
still available on SAIL.
------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 1981 1157-EST
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX>
Subject: Ordnance
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-XX

	This probably refers to the explosive charges that will
separate the tanks, etc. I doubt that weapons in spac will be
on that flight, or so simple!
			Noel
	
-------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 1981 13:49 PST
From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Puzzling item on Shuttle checklist
To: Space-enthusiasts@MC
cc: TAW at SU-AI, Hamilton.ES

The ordnance is the small explosive charges used in any rocket for stage
separation.  Presumably this applies to both the solids and the external tank on
the Shuttle.

--Bruce

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Jan-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 January 1981 02:55-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Puzzling item on Shuttle checklist
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

Obviously it is a reminder that all the myriad weapons:
Schmeissers, Tommy guns, nerve gas, leprosy bombs, and the
like--be seen to be aboard.  After all what's space flight
without your nukes?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Jan-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 1981 1553-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Shuttle status phone number
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

For up to date info on the shuttle, dial:

			(213)922-INFO



				Alan
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 01 Feb 1981 2139-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Columbia safety    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n528  0128  24 Jan 81
BC-SPACE-01-24
    By William Hines
    (c) 1981 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)
     WASHINGTON-The astronauts who will fly the first space shuttle
mission to Earth orbit and back say they are confident of the safety
of their still-untested rocket ship Columbia.
     ''There is a higher safety factor in (Columbia) than in any
airliner,'' John W. Young, a four-mission space veteran and moon
walker who will command the 2 1/2-day flight, told a press conference
Friday after a full-scale simulation was completed at the Johnson
Space Center in Houston.
     ''We obviously think it's safe or we wouldn't be doing it,'' said
co-pilot Robert L. Crippen, who never has flown in space.
     Columbia, a DC-9-size craft boosted by powerful liquid- and
solid-fuel rockets, is scheduled to lift off from the old Apollo
moonport at the Kennedy Space Center on Florida's east coast at 6:23
a.m. Chicago time March 17.
     It is scheduled to glide into a ''dead-stick''1 landing on Edwards
Dry Lake in the Mojave Desert north of Los Angeles at 12:54 p.m.
March 19.
     Unlike all other first flights in the 22-year-old National
Aeronautics and Space Administration astronaut program, this one was
not preceded by full-scale unmanned flight tests.
     ''It would cost $250 million to $500 million to go unmanned and
would slip the program (back) half a year or so,'' Young said when he
was asked about the desirability of conducting unmanned preliminary
missions.
    The space shuttle program, conceived in 1971 as a cost-saving method
to replace one-time-only launching vehicles with reusable ones,
already is more than 2 1/2 years behind schedule and billions of dollars
over original cost estimates.
    Young and Crippen professed no anxiety over the question of thermal
protection on the way back to Earth from orbit. A tremendous amount
of frictional heat is generated in any object entering the atmosphere
at cosmic velocities-a ''shooting star'' is a familiar example-and
protection of the vehicle and its crew has been a priority item in
the shuttle program.
    It has also been one of the toughest problems for space engineers to
handle, and is largely responsible for delay in reaching flight
readiness. A complex layer of several thousand heat-resistant tiles,
hand-bonded to crucial surfaces, is the ship's first line of heat
defense.
    Young disclosed that while an emergency tile repair kit is being
developed for use in event of heat-shield problems discovered prior
to re-entry, the kit will not be ready for use on the first flight.
    There will be no scientific objectives on the first mission, which
is officially designated STS-12 (for Space Transportation System, the
generic name for shuttle-based launching vehicles of the next 20
years).
    ''This is a test flight,'' Crippen explained, ''to make sure we can
get up on orbit properly and fly entry (as) we had planned. If we can
get up and down-even if we have to do it in one day-that would
satisfy 95 percent of the objectives of the flight.''
    Given a successful STS-1, NASA plans to fly a second test mission in
August.
    By about 1985, both the civilian space agency and the Defense
Department will be using shuttles exclusively for the launching of
payloads into Earth orbit and deeper space.
    ''Routine access to space is really important for the development of
science and technology,'' Young remarked. ''This vehicle is about 10
years ahead of what any other country in the world is able to do
right now. It will enable us to do in the next five years what it
would take 20 years to do otherwise.''
    Asked whether the new era in manned space flight will recapture the
excitement of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions of the 1960s
and early '70s, Crippen replied:
    ''We are trying to make going into space routine, and making things
routine is contrary to generating excitement.''
    END
    
nyt-01-24-81 0427est
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 02 Feb 1981 1350-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Shuttle delays
To:   space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

a231  1320  02 Feb 81
AM-Shuttle Delay,460
Manned Space Shuttle Suffers Another Setback
By HOWARD BENEDICT
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The oft-delayed first flight of the manned space
shuttle suffered another setback Monday when the space agency
announced it is postponing the liftoff another three weeks because of
a fuel tank problem.
    The launch, which had been set for March 17, now will be attempted
no earlier than the week of April 5, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration announced. The delay could be even longer if the
exact problem is not pinpointed and corrected soon, the agency said.
    The flight of the revolutionary spaceship is more than two years
behind schedule, primarily because of problems encountered developing
the main engines and the thermal protection system, both of which
required technology breakthroughs.
    The latest trouble cropped up last week during a fueling test at
Cape Canaveral, Fla., where the first shuttle, the Columbia, is on a
launch pad being readied for liftoff. NASA reported that when the huge
external fuel tank on the vehicle was emptied, technicians discovered
that two areas of outside insulation had become loose.
    The 154-foot-tall external tank holds more than half a million
gallons of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen which fuel the shuttle's
three main engines. The insulation, a spray-on chemical foam, is
intended to maintain fuel temperature and to protect the skin surface
from heat during liftoff.
    NASA said the areas that became ''debonded'' measured about 7 feet
by 8 feet and 4 feet by 4 feet. Officials said they are not certain
what caused the problem and they had no choice but to delay the launch
while they conducted an investigation.
    NASA also announced it had postponed from Feb. 13 to Feb. 16 a
flight readiness firing of Columbia's engines. That 20-second firing
on the launch pad will conclude a complete countdown rehearsal that
will test all elements of the shuttle system under launch conditions.
    The agency said the tank insulation problem will not affect that
test, that it is being delayed for minor technical reasons.
    Just 10 days ago, the two astronauts who will fly the first mission,
John Young and Bob Crin, told a news conference they were looking
forward to a launch on St. Patrick's Day. They said that because of
the numerous postponements, they are the best-trained astronaut crew
ever.
    The flight is scheduled for 54 hours in orbit. ''It's a test flight
to check all the systems,'' Crippen said. ''We mainly want to get it
up and get it back down.''
    NASA and the space agency are planning to operate a fleet of four
space shuttles. Each will land back on Earth like an airplane and each
will be capable of 100 or more round trips into space. They will be
used for a variety of scientific, commercial and military missions.
    
ap-ny-02-02 1620EST
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  3 February 1981 23:29 est
From:  Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  mailing list
To:  space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

I edit the national magazine for spacemodelers.  Would someone who knows
how please add me to this mailing list?  (If SPACE is a discrete mailing
list, please include me on it also.)

------------------------------

Date:  4 FEB 1981 0554-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject: AAS--L5 INVITATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PLANNING FUTURE IN SPACE
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC, POURNELLE at MIT-MC

	Over the weekend of 30 January at home of Larry Niven
was held conference sponsored by AAAS--L5 Society.  Attendence
good, two astronauts, several high aerospace company officials,
some top writers, and several program managers.

	Major conference paper is in preparation and not at
present available.

However, the conference also produced a statement on the FY 82
budget.  Noting that the Carter proposed budget leaves Reagan
Administration few optoins, several programs were requiested as
insurance to keep open options until Reagan can develop a
comprehensive policy on space.

I'd have included the paper in this mailing, but I don't know
how to drag in a file from outside rmail.
	JEP

------------------------------

Date:  4 FEB 1981 0557-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject: oops
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

That conference paper is 

mc:pourne;spaced >

Sorry about that...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Feb-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  5 FEB 1981 0336-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject:  well maybe you do it this way...
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

.M10 H11 S1 F0 G60 L74


.C				
|THE JOINT AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY--L5 SOCIETY
.C
|CONFERENCE ON PLANNING AMERICA'S FUTURE IN SPACE.

.C
|STATEMENT ON PROPOSED FY 82 NASA BUDGET


.c
|SPACE: THE CRUCIAL FRONTIER


        1.  The |rediscovery of progress| is a reasonable and feasible
national goal for the United States in the 1980's.
        Progress is possible.  We do not have to accept limits to
growth; but we do need specific strategies for progress.  Growth
requires investment and continuous expansion of the resource base.

        The United States has a world mission.  We influence by
example; we are the showplace of freedom; and in the present era we
must also be the sword and shield of liberty.  To fulfill this role we
must do more than survive.  We must remain militarily, economically,
and ideologically strong.
        We need visible goals: a reason for the nation to exist.  If
we have no dreams and goals, we have no nation.
        Insuring progress for ourselves and the world is a reasonable
and feasible goal for America.  Space activities can be a significant
part of our rediscovery of progress.

        2.  The vast majority of resources accessible to mankind are
NOT here on Earth.  The solar system abounds with minerals and energy.
Other nations are even now claiming those resources and developing
capabilities for using them.  If the United States does not compete,
we will have effectively abdicated economic leadership to those who
do.
    There is more at stake than that.  Space has very great military
potential.  Although no one is certain that strategically decisive
weapons can be deployed in space, no reasonable person can be certain
that they can |not| be.  Space based beam weapons may develop into
reliable missile defenses.  At the very least, the United States
|must| retain the option to compete in space.
        Space also has symbolic importance, if for no other reason
than the United States made the "Moon race" critical to our national
prestige.  To abandon space after announcing its crucial importance
hands the Soviets an unearned but enormously important ideological
victory.  It is obvious from their space activities that the Soviets
realize this.  We must, therefore, retain the option to move
effectively and quickly into space.
        Retaining that option is not simple.  No one can be sure what
capabilities will be needed.  Our adversaries have more experience in
the space environment than we do.
        Since we cannot know which space capabilities may prove to be
decisive, we cannot design robots or artificial intelligence systems
in advance.  The only truly versatile space system is man; and the
only way to insure a capability to do a wide variety of tasks in
space--including construction of the military systems that may be
needed in future--is to make entry to and operations in the space
environment routine.
        We must continue both manned and unmanned exploration of
space.  Our survival may depend on it.

  AAS--L5 Statement on FY 82 Budget                  Page Two

        3.  The "Revoluton of Rising Expectations" concides with the
"era of limits" to aggravate international instabilities.  Most of the
world will remain poor in the remaining years of this century--and
this in a "global village".  The wretched of the Earth are very much
aware that everyone doesn't live their way.  World economic growth is
not merely desirable on ethical grounds; it is very much in the U.S.
national interest.
        Rapid economic growth is not easy.  It requires investment.
It also requires technological growth, and expanded resources.  We
cannot abandon technology; indeed, we must rapidly expand our entire
technological and industrial base.

        4.  All the above factors combine to make space an important
option.  To preserve and increase capabilities for military activities
in space we must expand our space activities.  If we are to extend our
technological base, we must actively seek renewed interest in the hard
disciplines of science and engineering.  The economic growth of the
U.S. and the world will be enhanced by exploitation of the space
environment.  Ignoring space abandons the major resource base of the
next century.

        5.  Retaining space options is time dependent.  The lead time
for space activities is long.  Decisions made NOW in 1981 have
consequences stretching far into the future.  Decisive programs must
be underaken NOW or many capabilities will be lost; and once lost,
they cannot be regained without costly and wasteful crash programs.
Much that we should accomplish before 1988 cannot be done without
immediate changes in our national space policies.

        6.  The space question is crucial: if we do not preserve space
options, we are betting national survival in order to save a miniscule
fraction of the national budget.  This is neither reasonable nor
prudent.

        7.  It is also possible to make space pay for itself--indeed,
to use space to feed a new period of rapid economic growth.  The
opportunities are there.  The resources and energy are there.  It is
now obvious that some nations will gain great wealth from space.  The
only controversy is over the time scale.

        8.  If humanity survives at all--which we fully expect--then
there is no doubt that civilizations in the centuries to come will
spread across the entire solar system.  As Arthur Clarke has said,
except for a fleeting instant in the beginning of history, the word
'ship' will mean space ship.
        This generation can take mankind and freedom into the solar
system.  Much can be lost by delay; still more can be gained by
beginning now.  |The nation and statesmen who give mankind the planets
will be remembered forever.

  AAS--L5 Statement on FY 82 Budget                     Page Three



.C
|PRESERVING SPACE OPTIONS.


        The United States needs, but does not have, a comprehensive
strategy for exploiting space.  We must have a unified plan which
abandons the artificial division of space into "military" and
"civilian" programs.
        Such a plan cannot be devised in a few days.  Space plans are
by nature technologically complex, and require considerable study.
However, it is clear that certain capabilities ought to be preserved,
so that strategists will retain a full menu of options.
        These options must include the capability to:
                Move quickly to a permanent manned presence in space.
                Develop economic returns from the space investment.
        The FY 1982 NASA Budget prepared by the previous
Administration forecloses significant options which should be
preserved.  We therefore recommend that the following items be added
to the FY 82 budget as insurance.  Note that we do NOT recommend that
all of these systems be constructed; but we do think it vital that
they remain possible.
        While the costs of these systems is not low, it is small
compared to many other elements of the national budget; and the
options retained thereby may be vital to the preservation of the
United States in future times.

FY 82 recommendatons

1.  LEO BASE ONE         (Space Industrial Park)
        FY 82 Funds required:   $5 million
        TOTAL SYSTEM COST:      $4 billion
        System Operational Capability: 1988
        Preliminary plans already exist for LEO Base under the concept
of the Space Operations Center; a general-purpose permanently manned
space station capable of supporting privately-financed space
industrial activities.  It may be thought of as a "space industrial
park".
        LEO Base One could be the most important new start of this
decade.  It will place the U.S. permanently in space, demonstrating
unequivocally that we have not abandoned the high frontier to the
Soviet Union.  Moreover, this operations facility provides
opportunities for the creative energies of private enterprise to be
brought to this crucial area.  It has been the historic role of
goverment to build roads to new frontiers and protect the early
settlers.  This space facility meets that need.
        LEO Base One also provides a splendid opportunity for
international cooperation.  Its modular design would allow not merely
experiments, but industrial research and development, in cooperation
with allies and friends.
        The total cost of the LEO Base, ready for operations, is
approximately $4 billion in 1981 dollars.
        The space station has a significant possibility of bringing a
very high return on investment.  We might get filthy rich from it.
        LEO Base One could be made operational before 1988 if
intelligent management and procurement procedures are employed.

AAS--L5 Statement on FY 82 Budget                             Page Four

        We have studied the possibilities of having significant
hardware components of LEO Base One in orbit by Fall of 1984.  We
conclude that while this is possible, it is a high-risk venture, and
requires an immediate crash program to be given highest national
priority.  It does not cost a great deal more in total costs to go for
the 1984-85 target date, but it does require more money invested much
earlier in the program.

 2.  Halley Comet Flyby (Scientific/ National Prestige)
                FY 82           $20 Million
                TOTAL COST:     $600 Million
        The Halley mission is the only competition with the Soviets
that is fixed in advance.  We will look good if we try it.  We will
show that we have not abandoned space to others.
        Halley's Comet will be visible in the solar system in 1986-87.
Unlike the Kahoutek "Christmas Comet", Halley's has been known for
centuries, and has never disappointed us yet.  It is likely to be
spectacular.
        There is very little that the United States can do in 1986-87
that will be impressive in comparison with the known Soviet space
capabilities and intentions.  Therefore, it is reasonable to exploit
the few advantages we have--and the capability for spectacular
pictures from within the gasseous coma of Halley's Comet is nearly
certain.  The mission could fail, but that is highly unlikely.
        The Halley Comet mission requires an immediate funding of $20
million.  If that is not put in the FY 82 budget, the opportunity is
lost for this generation.

3.  Space Solar Power Systems
                FY 82           $30 Million
                TOTAL SYSTEM COST   Up to $200 Billion
                Systems Operational Capability   1990-2000

        Although the most spectacular use of Space Solar Power Systems
is to provide electricity for Earth, they will also be vital for
exploitation of space resources.
        There is no question that Space Solar Power Systems will
_work._ Many expensive studies have proved that.  The controversy is
over the economics of using them as a means of providing significant
electric power to Earth.  (One currently considered design would have
each satellite generate as much electricity as does Grand Coulee Dam.)
         There are sufficient uncertainties as to preclude making
Space Solar Power Systems a national goal at this time.
        HOWEVER: the option to build Space Solar Power Systems should
be preserved and the economic feasibility of the concept investigated.
        A reasonable funding level for this kind of space power system
for FY 82 would be $30 million.  Most of that would go to technology
studies; the resulting technology will be useful for other space
programs, including development of long-term capabilities for
exploitation of lunar resources.  Therefore, the money spent in the
Space Solar Power Systems program is largely a recoverable investment.
        As an aside, most investments in technology have more than
paid for themselves.  Knowledge is indivisible, and is useful no
matter under which program it is developed.

  AAS--L5 Statement on FY 82 Budget                    Page Five

        The Space Solar Power Systems option adds another means of
national survival.  Our present energy policies are unlikely to
provide the energy resources for rapid industrial growth until the
year 2000.  The Space Solar Power Systems option is cheap insurance
against failure of more conventional energy supplies--and all the
money for Space Solar Power Systems is spent in the US, developing US
technological capabilities.

4.  ASTEROID OR LUNAR POLAR INVESTIGATION
        Industrial Exploitation with strong Scientific Value
        FY 82   $50 Million
        TOTAL SYSTEM COST       Under $300 Million
        Mission Completion: Before Fall 1984

        Note that this is the only new start that could begin and go
to completion before 1985.

        APOLLO gave us valuable knowledge about 20% of the lunar
surface.  This knowledge can be rapidly and economically extended to
the entire lunar surface by means of an unmanned satellite in a polar
orbit around the Moon.  A large number of well-conducted scientific
and engineering studies have defined the mission, which employs
off-the-shelf spacecraft.
        The lunar polar mission can discover an even greater range of
useful resources than were found by Apollo.  It may confirm the
existence of vast quantities of water ice, which theory predicts must
exist in the eternally cold polar regions.
        Instrumentation for the lunar polar mission would be
applicable to exploration of asteroids, other moons, possible
near-Earth space debris, and planets with tenuous atmospheres.
        Asteroids are a potential source for a variety of industrial
raw materials.  Investigation of asteroids will expand the potential
material resource base for the United States and all of humanity.
This mission is important for eventual exploitation of space
resources, and also commands great support within the scientific
community.
        Either or both of these missions: asteroid or lunar
polar--could be accomplished in 1984 (if we begin now).  Much of the
equipment--satellite and launch vehicle--required for either mission
is common to both. Thus, provided that we commit now to doing one of
the missions, we have a few months in which to decide which one
actually to accomplish.


.c
|CONCLUSION

        The above recommendations preserve significant options at
relatively low cost.  This will allow more liesurely study and the
development of a comprehensive national space policy.  Failure to
preserve these options dictates a number of limits on our space
program in advance of development of an integrated space policy and
plan.
        A comprehensive strategy for using space as a means to pursue
vital national interests is urgently needed.  It should not be
crippled in advance through pretended savings.

------------------------------

Date: Feb 5, 1981
To: SPACE@MC
From: OTA@SAIL
Subject: OMB cuts again, this time: NASA

n525  0133  05 Feb 81
BC-NASA-02-05
    By William Hines
    (c) 1981 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)
     WASHINGTON - The Reagan administration is tentatively proposing a
slash of more than 9 per cent in the budget of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    Such a cut would bring the U.S. interplanetary exploration program
to a virtual halt for the rest of this decade.
    The cuts were included in a wide-ranging ''hit list'' prepared by
the Office of Management of Budget and obtained this week by the
Chicago Sun-Times. Disclosure of the proposals took NASA's top
management by surprise.
    If OMB Director David Stockman prevails, NASA will lose $629 million
of the $6.726 billion budget that President Carter submitted to
Congress shortly before he left office last month.
    No element of the space program - including even the hitherto
sacrosanct Space Shuttle manned rocketship - would be shielded from
the OMB axe. The new proposals call for deleting the option to build
a fifth Shuttle craft to augment the four now authorized as the
mainstays of both civilian and military space activities beginning
about 1985.
    Also doomed under the OMB formula would be a project called Galileo,
designed to continue scientific investigations of Jupiter and its
ring and moon systems that began with the Pioneer and Voyager
missions of the 1970s.
    The cuts also would ''defer'' - for the 1982 fiscal year, at least -
an advanced program for the mapping of cloud-shrouded Venus, whose
surface features were first disclosed in crude detail by a Pioneer
spacecraft last May.
    The de-emphasis on interplanetary exploration, if approved, would
virtually eliminate the famed Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena,
Calif., as a significant center of space research after the middle of
this decade. It also would yield supremacy in this field of space
science to other countries now beginning to take a lively interest in
deep space.
    Decisions not to go to Jupiter again and to delay the Venus mission
almost certainly would dash whatever hopes U.S. scientists had for a
close-up look at the famous Halley's Comet, which is due to make a
rare flight through the inner solar system in 1986.
    Japanese, European and Soviet space scientists are working on
spacecraft designed to fly by Halley's, which is seen about once
every 75 years. Without a go-ahead this year, American scientists are
doomed to stand on the sidelines as the celebrated comet dashes past.
    In addition to a $40 million saving in the 1982 budget by deferring
the Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar (VOIR) project and $108 million by
canceling the Galileo-Jupiter mission, OMB proposes to save $155
million by cutting off the fifth Shuttle and $52 million by deferring
work on an Earth-orbiting spacecraft designed to study some of the
universe's most mysterious objects.
    This ''Gamma Ray Observatory'' would zero in on stars and other
remote objects that emit not just light, but also invisible radiation
akin to X-rays. Some of these gamma-ray emitters, scientists believe,
may be dying stars just on the verge of collapsing into themselves
and becoming ''black holes.''
    Two projects with more practical applications to everyday life on
Earth also are targeted in the OMB hit list.
    One is a set of scientific experiments intended for research on the
upper atmosphere, and the other is an aerodynamic simulator that
would be expected to help in the design of advanced airplanes. The
upper atmosphere research package is in the Carter version of the
1982 budget for $20 million, and the simulator for $16 million.
    Deferring of the Venus radar mission had definite political
overtones, as did its inclusion in the Carter budget.
    VOIR - an acronym that in French means ''to see'' - had long been
proposed as a logical next step in the exploration of the nearest and
most Earthlike of all our planetary neighbors. Because of its dense,
perpetual cloud cover, Venus' surface can never be observed by
ordinary telescopes or TV spacecraft.
    VOIR would carry advanced side-looking radar equipment to map in
fine detail the surface of Venus, which is now known to contain huge
mountains, continents, valleys and other Earthlike features.
    Carter kept NASA's VOIR proposal on the back burner until Nov. 1,
the weekend before the election, and then announced it under
circumstances that were widely interpreted as a vote-getting bid to
the aerospace community.
    Probably the biggest surprise in the OMB hit list was the
cancellation of Galileo, which has had wide scientific support and
represents another step in a field of space exploration where the
United States has been unchallenged up to now.
    The schedule for Galileo was launching in 1985 and arrival at
Jupiter in 1987. It would have consisted of two spacecraft,
simultaneously launched. One would be an orbiter that would circle
Jupiter, studying the planet, its rings and moons over a period of
years. The other would be a probe designed to fly into Jupiter's
dense atmosphere, giving insights into the nature of the giant planet
that could not be obtained in any other way.
    The harsh cuts proposed by Stockman were at sharp variance with the
kind words he had for the space program in speech to the National
Press Club here the day after the Reagan administration took over.
    While specifying that ''we will be looking for some waste'' in NASA,
the OMB director said he did not ''foresee any major changes or major
reductions in the space budget.''
    He added: ''I think (the space effort is) a very constructive and
important investment for the country to make, not only because of its
technological spin-off, but simply because of the boost that (it)
gives to our economy and our aspirations and imaginations as a
society as a whole in general.''
    END
    
nyt-02-05-81 0433est
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  5 FEB 1981 0930-EST
From: REM at MIT-MC (Robert Elton Maas)
Subject: OMB cuts again, this time: NASA
To: OTA at SU-AI
CC: SPACE at MIT-MC

Bletch!  Well, I guess it's time for all us science-loving people,
and there are many of us, to band together and either make Congress
reinstate these budget items or else pool our funds and purchase
NASA and JCL and keep all scientific findings to ourselves until
those others realize their folly and purchase the findings from us.
I'd be glad to pay NASA&JCL for my share of the pictures of
Ganymede and Io and Dione and Saturn etc. (if enough share costs that
my share isn't more than I can afford) and would be glad to do the same
for future missions such as Galileo and Asteroid-sampler.

Yeah, I know, purchasing a government agency isn't quite like purchasing
a corporation, but something might be arranged somehow.

------------------------------

Date:  6 FEB 1981 0602-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject: maximum effort
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

They're now testing the trial baloon:threaten to cut our liver
out, to see if we have any constituency.  It's an old ploy, and
if we have no constituents, they will in fact hack away.

The Star Trek outfits are doing something.

Soms sf people are (if anyone wants to forward this to SF
lovers, feel free)

The space budget is threatened.  Psace is like defense, we say:
to be increaed, not cut. It's INVESTMENT in mnkind's future.

If you believe that send letter to Hon. David Stockman, OMB EOP
Wash DC 20503 and say so.  You might also urge that he read the
AAS/L5 paper he has (the one we circulated here).
	President Ronald Reagan The White House Wash DC 20500 
	"Dear Mr. President..."
It's aa standard test.  If nobody squeals they will cut out
orbiters and asll the rest of the programs.
	On the other hand we could show them space has a
constitency.  Or does it?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 08 Feb 1981 2142-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: saving nasa   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I have forwarded material from SPACE to the undergraduate
computer facility bboard (along with Stockman's address).  I
have urged them to write, but inertia will claim many attempts.

However, I am now writing an opinions column for our student
newspaper, The Stanford Daily.  This will get wide exposure
(about 20,000 readers), although the population is not
homogenous in support of the space program.

I am in the process of digging up information on NASA for that
column.  It is easy to find out how the budget figures for the
last decade, but I do not have firm figures on the financial
benefits of the space program.  Do you have a figure for return
per dollar?  (where return should be computed both conservatively -
weather and communications satellites, etc... - and liberally -
spin offs, etc...)  Or a pointer (or set thereof) to published papers
that deal with this issue?


Jim



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 FEB 1981 0342-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject: NASA payoff
To: JNC at MIT-MC, ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

Precisely :  I can't quarrel with your statement at all.  And
not long ago, Larry and I rode from Boston to NYC on a
French-buiolt aircraft flown by Eastern Airlines...

    Date: 10 FEB 1981 2109-EST
    From: JNC at MIT-MC (J. Noel Chiappa)

    	One thing a lot of people have skirted the edge of, but never
    gotten to exactly, is how much good NASA has done for us economically.
    People are always saying "Oh, the technology pays for itslef several
    times over",, but consider this: the heavy industry that brought this
    country to industrial power is now no longer competitive in many cases.
    Cars are a case in point. Light manufacturing (e.g. clothes, shoes)
    is also far gone. The ONLY thing left that is REALLy keeping us
    afloat economically is advanced technology, which was spurred
    (almost entirely) by space and defence. The consumer electronics
    followed where the others led. Thus, you might say that were it not
    for the space program, we'd be broke today; not ten ot twenty
    years down the road, NOW!
    			Noel

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Feb-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1981 (Wednesday) 1541-EDT
From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus)
To:   space at MIT-AI

My views on the continuation of the Space program in the United States.
	Henry Dreifus, University of Pennsylvania

	Many years of devoted research and development of our ultimate
resource, namely the universe is just begining to reach our grasp.
Further basic research, and continued support will blossom in to some
of the most significant new ideas collected and utilized by the human
race.  As the breadth of the research increases, so must the effort to
utilize and understand this scientific knowledge.

	Granted much of the space-showcase is for glitters and pride, a
more educationally fundamental goal should be on the minds of the top
decision makers of the world.  Exploration and research of new secrets
of the universe hold the key to the human-race's future. 

	The commercial aspects of space-industry however should not be
overlooked.  Funding should be continued, and unification of the
long-term goals should be undertaken.  Below is an approximate
percentage of research funding for each area;

Basic research (X-ray astronomy, planetology)	40%
Technological research (new-fuels, computers, 0-g kitchen sinks)  40%.
Earth benefactored research (balloons, communications eqpt, landsat) 20%

	Some of the effort in supporting any given 'good' cause
naturally endangers another equally good cause.  Care must be exercised
in attempting to decide what should stay and what should be cut.  The
underlying theme however should be:  If I make this decision, I want the
human-race to benefit from its result.  Personal gain, and greed, all to
common in politics [disappointingly] should be placed aside.  

Henry Dreifus
4060 Irving Street #2.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104



------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1981 1805-PST
From: MERRITT at USC-ISIB
Subject: Letter
To: space at MIT-MC

Personal opinions on the United States Space program
	Ian H. Merritt, University of Southern California
			Information Sciences Institute

	The United States of America has a great investment in the
technology for space exploration.  This technology has been responsible
for so much of what we take for granted in our daily lives today.
This letter is being written by the use of electronic hardware, much
of which evolved from technology developed for the first space missions.
The integrated circuit is an example of this.  If not for this microscopic
device, our computers would not be anything like what they are today.
Look at the USSR, for example.

	It is true that the program can bring positive publicity,
but that it is not what its primary function has been.  The program
should get MORE funding; not less.  To decrease the support of our
exploration of the universe around us would be irresponsible to the
human race.  Who knows what is out there, as yet un-discovered. What
are we going to do in the years to come when this small rock we inhabit
prooves too small for all of us.  If we can't all live together here,
where will we go if there has been no space program.  Population growth
is not slowing down. Consumption of fuels is not slowing down. People
are not. Society is not.  Where will we be left.

	It is also true that the United States, as with any other
country/society, is far more productive when there is something to
be proud of.  What, I ask you, What do we have to be proud of today?
Can we be proud that we finally got the hostages out of captivity
after over a year?  We shouldn't have even gotten into that mess.
No, we can not be proud of that. Can we be proud of the fact that
the Japanese Automobile has nearly replaced the American car? The
Japanese can be very proud of this; we can't.  It takes more than
brute force to revive a society. Any society. Especially one as large
as our own.  We are still the best damn country in the world, but
we are working hard to destroy whatever's left.

	Though the goals are long-term, our industry NEEDS this program.
Imagine mining the moon.  The products found there could be used to
build stations in space and on the moon.  Such stations could be used
in the manufacture of goods which require extremely stable environments.
Crystals grow more perfectly in zero gravity.  Imagine what we could
do with our computer industry.  Communications relay stations, not
unlike large-scale satellites could evolve.  I can't even begin to
conceive of all the possibilities.

	Now take a look at where we will be without this technology.
Look closely.  Sure, we might have some short-term recovery, but then
where? What are we going to do then?  If we dropped the program, we
would be so far behind so as to totally distort the technological
evolution, making it extremely difficult, at best, to continue.

	All aspects of the problem must obviously be considered before
making any major decision.  This is no exception.  I am talking about
the future of the human race.

Ian H. Merritt
456 S. Bedford drive
Beverly Hills, California 90212
-------

------------------------------

Date: 11 FEB 1981 2136-EST
From: HPM at MIT-MC (Hans P. Moravec)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC, ENERGY at MIT-MC

The address as Jerry indicated a few days ago is simply:
President Ronald Reagan, The White House, Washington, D.C. 20500

[Also,
David Stockman
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Old Executive Office Building
17th and Pennsylvania, NW
Washington, DC 20503
	-ota]
------------------------------

Date: 12 FEB 1981 0343-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject: SPS technical feasibility
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Office of Technology Assessment (arm of Congress created
originally by Ted Kennedy) has done study of Solar Power
Satellites.  Their report is that they are feasible.

One sentence in report is a conclusion that fesibility and
practicality of SPS for power gneeration in next century is
comparable to that of magnetic fusion systems.

Economics may be another matter, although this report seems to
find economics no worse than fusion.

Fusion gets about $400 million a year, of which at least $300
million is magnetic confinement.  SPS gets essentially nothing.
Most groups supporting SPS are asking for $30 million, about 10%
of magnetic confinement fusion.   Even $10 million would help.
SPS is thought by many of us to be an optin that we simply
cannot ignore; and teh technology studies leading toward SPS are
of general utility for all space programs.  Do not forget:
whether or not you ever beam power down to earth you will need
power IN SPACE for indusrial programs there.

------------------------------

Date: 12 February 1981 04:03-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re:  Re: NASA payoff
To: MERRITT at USC-ISIB
cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, JNC at MIT-MC, ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC,
    Janofsky.Tipi at RADC-MULTICS

Whatever the proprieties or improprieties, I assure you YOU ARE
NOT ALONE.  I think in the next few weeks we will convince the
authorities that space has a constituency; a rational and
sensible constituency, unusual in that many of its adherents
have absolutely no direct financial stake in it at all.  (Most
don't work for aerospace, have specialities that would get them
jobs if the whole space program folded, etc.)
	Even if we --(we = human race in my view) lose the FY 82
battle, by preparing the ground we may win a much more important
war: a new charter for NASA and a rational space program.
	Incidentally, the Citizen's Advisory Group on Space
Policy is already semi-official in that its reports are now
invited, and will also very likely be submitted as testimy to
the Space Committee.
	ad astra...

------------------------------

Date: 12 February 1981 04:12-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: NASA payoff
To: Janofsky.Tipi at RADC-MULTICS
cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, JNC at MIT-MC, ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC,
    MERRITT at USC-ISIB

For your information, the House Space Committee is:
Chairman Congressman Ronnie Flippo, Democrat of Alabama
Cannon Office Building, Washington DC 20515 202-225-4801

Congressman Bill Nelson (d) Florida (Cape Kennedy)
Cannon  20515

Congressman George Brown, Jr. (D) California
Rayburn 20515  202-225-6161

Congresswoman Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard  (D) Tennessee (Oak Ridge)
Rayburn 20515  202-225-3271
(Ms. Bouquard is new to the committe but not to congress)

Congressman Ralph Hall (D) Texas (rural area)
Longworth Offiec Building  20515  202-225-6673
(Newly elected congressman)

Congressman Harold C. Hollenbeck (Ranking Republican) New Jersey
Longworth 1526
202-225-5061

Congressman Raymond McGrath (R) New York - Long Island
Cannon 506  20515  202-225-5516

Congressman Bill Lowry (R) Calif. San Diego
Longworth 1331  20515  202-225-3201

For obvious reasons these people tend to be very friendly to
space programs.  They are also one of the best sources of
information, especially if you happen to live in their district.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 1981 1912-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Grassroots space movement
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC, energy at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF


It has become apparent in the last few days that a number of people on
these list (perhaps most) are interested in showing those in charge that
there is a viable space constituency out here.  Another thing you can do
to help promote space is to become active in your local pro-space 
organization.  There are a number of them around.  

I am most familiar with OASIS, the so cal L5 chapter.  We have monthly
meetings, monthly potluck dinners and parties, and a variety of other
activities.  OASIS currently has about 250 members.  We publish a 
pretty good quality magazine, the OASIS news.  If you are in the So. Cal.
area and are interested in space, come to one of our meetings and meet 
others with the same interest.  The next meeting is scheduled for Feb. 28
at Rockwell International in Downey, where we will hear a talk on the
Space Shuttle and get to see the full scale mockup.  Our meetings are
usually held on the 4th Sat of the month, starting at 7:00.  If you
would like to find out more about OASIS, sndmsg to me or call us at
374-1381.

If you are in the San Francisco Bay area, there is a local chapter of
the L5 society there also (not quite as big as OASIS).  They have 
meetings and potluck dinners monthly also.  For more info about them,
contact Ross Millikan at (415)482-0532.

There are also active groups in Mass., Texas, Washington, and Chicago
but I am less familiar with them.  

Then of course there is the L5 society, the national organization
which is well worth joining.

There is rapidly becoming a space "grassroots" movement with many
social activities as well as educational programs and political
type things. If you are interested, become active.




					Alan
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Feb-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 1981 10:57 PST
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Asteroids
To: Space@MIT-AI

The following appeared in a recent news digest:

         "Civilization Could Be Ended by Asteroid Barrage
    
    "WASHINGTON - Warning that errant asteroids could one day destroy
civilization on Earth - just as they may have wiped out dinosaurs - a
group of scientists says man should be planning to use rockets and
hydrogen bombs to deflect them back into space."

Any one know more about this? I was under the impression that asteroids large
enough to be dangerous to earthlings were fairly rare. I have not heard evidence
before that asteroids wiped out the dinosaurs, although it seems as likely as any
of the other theories I have heard.

	--	Larry	--
    




------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 1981 19:35 PST
From: OTA

Here is the story that the news digest was extracted from.  It answers
most of the questions.  On a related topic:  I have heard recently
that there is new suspicion of a tenth planet.  The news story I heard
said that perturbations had been detected in Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus
and Neptune.  There was some speculation in recent SciAm that had the
article about Galelio's observations that suggested that there was still
another planet, but this seems newer than that.  Anyone know more about
this?
	Ted

a013  2221  12 Feb 81
PM-Worlds in Collision, Bjt,520
Scientists: Plan Now to Stop Asteroids from Striking Earth
By HOWARD BENEDICT
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Warning that errant asteroids could one day
destroy civilization on Earth - just as they may have wiped out
dinosaurs - a group of scientists says man should be planning to use
rockets and hydrogen bombs to deflect them back into space.
    There are about 800 asteroids in deep space that could destroy most
of life on our planet, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of smaller
ones that could demolish a single city or region, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Advisory Council said in a
recent report.
    The only way to avoid an impending collision would be to detect the
possibility far in advance and intercept the approaching body with a
hydrogen bomb, the council said.
    Such a project could eventually cost billions of dollars, but the
council proposed a modest beginning: a few million NASA dollars to
start Project Spacewatch.
    The project would dedicate one large telescope to detect all
asteroids and meteors larger than 30 to 60 feet in diameter whose
paths cross the Earth's orbit and track them for years in case they
wander onto a collision course. The observation could later be
expanded to detect smaller objects with a network of telescopes, radar
and satellites.
    To change a collision course, the council said, a spacecraft
carrying a hydrogen bomb would attach itself to the object in space
and be exploded by a radio signal from the ground.
    The group, assembled by NASA to explore future space projects, noted
there is growing acceptance by scientists of a theory that the
world's dinosaur population was erased 65 million years ago when an
asteroid, perhaps six miles in diameter, struck the Earth.
    The theory, proposed three years ago by Nobel Prize-winning
physicist Luis Alvarez, is that the collision threw so much dust and
debris into the atmosphere that it blocked out the sun for years,
destroying plant life and plant-eating animals like dinosaurs.
    ''In the 130 million years the dinosaurs roamed the Earth, they
failed to develop the technology to avoid their own extinction,'' the
council said. ''Homo sapiens has developed an adequate technology. He
can avert any further extinction by asteroid impact. We think he
should.''
    So what is NASA doing with this recommendation?
    Very little, at present, according to Dr. Devan French, the agency's
discipline scientist for planetary materials.
    ''In the current financial climate, it's difficult to propose a new
program such as this if you can't justify a clear need for it,'' he
said.
    French would like to see a low-level effort started, such as
investing $3 million to $4 million in a telescope especially for
asteroid and meteor observation.
    Much attention was focused on this potential problem in 1967 when
the asteroid Icarus passed within 4 million miles of Earth - close by
astronomical standards. That mile-wide collection of rock and ice
comes close to our planet every 19 years, and astronomers speculate
that the gradually changing gravitational pull of the Earth and other
planets could someday put it on a collision path with Earth.
    
ap-ny-02-13 0122EST
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 February 1981 09:31-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Asteroids
To: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
cc: Space at MIT-AI

There's a lot of evidence that an asteroid or comet hit the Earth,
vaporizing in the air and spreading dust in the air for years after,
causing a temporary climatic change that was too much for dinosaurs
to cope with.  I don't have the details memorized, nor the article
here with me, and I forget whether it was in Science or some other
magazine.  As to whether such an event can happen again, during the
next 50 years quite unlikely, during the next billion years, perhaps.
I suspect we could survive if it happened today, although a lot
of life out in the wild might die out.  Does anybody remember where
this theory&evidence was reported?



------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 1981 1050-EST
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: history of "asteroid strikes Earth" scenario
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: king at RUTGERS

	This is a historical note concerning the possibility of a
large asteroid hitting the earth and the possibility of deflecting it
with a fusion bomb:
	MIT has an undergraduate course, entitled "Space Systems
Laboratory" or something to that effect.  Every year about a dozen
students are given a scenario or a project, and they solve as many
engineering problems as they can forsee (on paper of course - space
systems are still a bit expensive for an undergraduate course).
	Either three or four years ago the scenario was that a large
asteroid was aimed at the earth and the mission was to prevent impact.
Their report was that the most practical method was fusion bombs.  If
the NASA group was founded three years ago, I believe that the MIT
report was first.
	When Niven and Pournelle wrote "Lucifer's Hammer" (in which a
comet hit the Earth) they used a comet (I presume) because one can't
protect Earth from a comet with fusion bombs.  A precise trajectory
cannot be determined for a comet because comets give off gases,
disturbing their orbits in (as yet) unpredictable ways.  Earthlings
would therefore not even know whether a given comet was going to hit
the Earth, let alone in which direction to deflect it to cause a
near-miss.  In addition, the comet that played the title role in
Lucifer's Hammer contained many large chunks of matter, and the orbit
of one chunk would be affected by attempts to deal with another in a
most disturbing manner.  After I read the book, I heard that the
movie, "Meteor", was coming soon.  I immediately knew from the title
that Earth would be saved in the end.
	I remember reading somewhere (I think in Technology Review,
MIT's alumni magazine, but don't quote me on this) that the MIT course
inspired the movie. To my knowledge, this is the first time a college
course was made into a mass-circulation movie.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 1981 21:18
Subject: Finally some good press.
From: OTA@SAIL

This is a long, but quite interesting, News Service story on the NASA
Budget cuts.  Please let me know if you object to this kind of really long
message on the digest and in the future I will just send the file name and
people can read it if they want.

BC-SPACE-2takes-02-15
    By William Hines
    (c) 1981 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)
    WASHINGTON-Evidence is emerging that some of the cuts in Budget
Director David A. Stockman's celebrated ''black book'' were made with
a broadax instead of a scalpel, and by executioners rather than
surgeons.
    A case in point is a space mission called Galileo, which is on
Stockman's ''hit list'' for cancellation, at a fiscal 1982 saving of
$108 million. Already, $250 million has been spent on Galileo, out of
a projected total of $650 million to $700 million.
    Galileo's defenders say the proposal is false economy that will cost
more in the long run than it will save now.
    ''To abandon the investment that has been made in Galileo over the
last several years ... doesn't make any sense to me, even as a
taxpayer,'' Harvard astronomer Alistair G.W. Cameron said last week.
    Cameron is head of the National Academy of Sciences' Space Science
Board, which in 1975 recommended the project that eventually became
Galileo. The board, composed of non-government scientists and working
at the government's request, defined detailed study of the planet
Jupiter, its moons and its environment as a ''primary objective'' of
planetary exploration in the 1980s.
    Assuming that Stockman's death sentence is not carried out,
Galileo's hardware will be carried to Earth orbit by a space shuttle
rocket plane and then launched toward Jupiter. The interplanetary
phase of the launch will be with a modified version Centaur
upper-stage rocket that has been a mainstay of U.S. deep-space
exploration for 15 years.
    Once en route to Jupiter, Galileo will coast for 2 1/2 years across
half a billion miles of space. Then, near the target, the spacecraft
will split in two, one part penetrating the dense, turbulent
atmosphere of the planet and the other going into orbit around it.
    The probe will survive for only about an hour while sinking into the
murky Jovian atmosphere, but it is expected to send back answers to
many outstanding mysteries about the largest planet known to
scientists-a body so big it has been called a ''failed star.''
    The orbiter is designed to function for 20 months, and could last
much longer. It will study Jupiter's turbulent cloud cover and major
moons, and will measure the energetic particles and electromagnetic
fields around the planet.
    Present plans call for Galileo to be lifted to orbit on the 35th
shuttle flight, in the spring of 1985. Shuttle's first flight,
originally scheduled for 1978, is now set for early April.
    Delays and design changes caused by problems with the shuttle-based
space transportation system-and not through any fault of Galileo-have
added three years to the Jupiter mission's schedule and about $200
million to its cost.
    These factors stand out about Galileo:
    - It is no marginal NASA boondoggle, but rather a high-priority
project recommended by outside scientists. Among all its currently
authorized space-science projects, NASA ranks Galileo No. 2.
    - It is not a high-risk venture, but one using technologies and
flight techniques developed years ago for other planetary projects.
Atmospheric probes have penetrated the dense atmosphere of Venus;
four missions have been flown to Jupiter and beyond without a hitch,
and the orbiting of spacecraft around distant worlds has been done
repeatedly in missions to the moon, Venus and Mars. Only the space
shuttle itself is untried.
    - If Galileo is canceled, NASA's planetary exploration program will
virtually halt, and efforts to revive it later will be expensive.
    ''To mount a Galileo-like investigation at some time in the
future,'' the Space Science Board's Cameron said, ''we would pretty
much have to start over. You'd probably have to do most of the
preparatory work all over again.''
    Without Galileo, there is nothing left to keep the United States'
unrivaled planetary science team together. All that is left of a
once-active program today is Voyager 2. This spacecraft will provide
only three brief spikes of activity-each about a week long-in the
next eight years: at Saturn in August, Uranus in 1986 and Neptune in
1989.
    With this as background, the Galileo affair puts the Stockman school
of budgeteering-financial management in a vacuum-into a dubious light.
    Stockman's Office of Management and Budget is doing its best to
maintain this vacuum; late last week, NASA still had not received
official word about planned cuts. The agency is in the painful
position of trying to react to Stockman's moves after reading about
them in newspapers. Lacking official memoranda, NASA has no formal
way to say, ''Hey, we can cut our budget, but let's do it this way.''
    The OMB formula may make for spectacular one-upmanship, but
contributes nothing to the orderly shuffling of priorities in an
administration dedicated to shrinking itself efficiently.
    Last week, a White House memo informed NASA and other agencies that
they will receive the bad news officially after the holiday weekend,
and will be expected to make their responses by the end of the week,
in order to get the final Reagan-version budget to the printer and
back before its March 10 delivery date to Congress.
    But next weekend may be too late. President Reagan is expected to
tip his hand about most of his budgetary decisions in an economic
address on Wednesday. After that, as a practical matter, the new
budget will be set in concrete.
    There is no indication that Stockman sought any advice outside his
own office before swinging the ax at NASA; in fact, all evidence is
to the contrary.
    Stockman's own position on space can best be described as a straddle.
    In November, just after the election, Stockman submitted a memo to
Reagan about healing a sick economy-a memo that may have had much to
do with his appointment to OMB. Stockman listed agencies or
activities that were, in his view, mostly ''ineffective or of low
priority'' and ''could be cut by at least one-third.'' NASA was among
them, along with such old-time Republican targets as Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act funds, urban development grants and the
Peace Corps.
    Sen. Harrison H. Schmitt (R-N.M.), the former moonwalking astronaut
who succeeded Sen. Adlai E. Stevenson III (D-Ill.) as chairman of the
Senate science subcommittee, scolded Stockman for lumping NASA's
projects into a ''low priority'' category along with CETA and such.
Classifying NASA in this way, Schmitt said in a letter dated Dec. 22,
''hurts the credibility of your other excellent proposals.''
    Nothing more was heard from Stockman about space until Jan. 21,
when, speaking to the National Press Club on the first full day of
the Reagan administration, he said:
    ''I don't foresee any major changes or major reductions in the space
budget. I think that's a very constructive and very important
investment for the country to make, not only because of its
technological spinoff, but simply because of the boost that it gives
our economy and our aspirations and imaginations as a society....''
    When the black book became public early in February it hit NASA with
a 9 percent reduction from former President Jimmy Carter's figures
for fiscal 1982. But more than that, it targeted individual programs
for death or deferment, with heavy emphasis on the planetary side.
    By this time, NASA and the scientific community were wondering when
the real David A. Stockman would stand up.
    Although Reagan had little to say about space in his presidential
campaign and nothing in his inaugural address, it was widely assumed
that he would back projects that enabled the United States to show
the flag impressively, non-threateningly and at relatively low cost.
    From Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon to Voyager 1's flight past
Saturn, space spectaculars have been among the few U.S. exploits in
the last dozen years to get international approval and, as Stockman
said to the Press Club, give a boost to our national self-esteem.
    Unmanned space missions pay public-opinion dividends far out of
proportion to their cost. The grand total for unmanned deep-space
flights to date is one-tenth that for manned flight. Forty-two
missions of discovery and exploration involving five planets and
about 18 moons cost $3.2 billion. Thirty-one manned shots cost
roughly $31 billion.
    News early this month of the recommendation to cancel Galileo caught
everyone by surprise. Neither NASA headquarters nor its
interplanetary agent, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California,
nor the outside scientific community had any influence on, or warning
of, the decisions from Stockman's office.
    A Congressional Budget Office study done last year on possible ways
to trim federal spending was available to Stockman, but apparently
had no effect on what he proposed to Reagan. Not even the transition
team that was sent to NASA after the election had any input to the
black book.
    To make matters worse, the new president had no sources of advice
about space and science independent of OMB. This is largely Reagan's
own doing; he has not yet named a NASA administrator or White House
science adviser. As a result, nobody has been available to speak for
NASA or for science.
    George M. Low, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in
Troy, N.Y., and head of the Reagan transition team, said in a
telephone interview last week that his team made no recommendations
about cuts in NASA's budget.
    Low, a former No. 2 man at NASA under Presidents Richard M. Nixon
and Gerald R. Ford, said he believed it would have been inappropriate
for the team to recommend specific program changes. Revising the
budget, he explained, is a complicated procedure that is properly the
job of the new agency head (who, of course, has not been named). The
strategy for a balanced space program, Low said, ''has to be
determined by NASA.''
    The man closest to the NASA portion of Stockman's hit list is Harold
Glaser, until last year a division chief in the space agency's Office
of Space Science. Faced with reassignment to other duties as a result
of an internal shakeup, Glaser took early Civil Service retirement
and left NASA Nov. 1. The conditions of Glaser's departure-in effect,
his firing-have been described as less than cordial.
    Glaser is now working in the engineering and science branch of OMB,
which handles space agency funding. Phone calls to Glaser's office
last week, aimed at discussing his role and OMB's hit list rationale,
went unreturned.
    END
    
nyt-02-14-81 2307est
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 1981
Subject: errors
From: OTA@SU-AI

Errata:  In the news story I sent out yesterday there was a missing
line of text due to my klutziness with the editor.  Here is the
section of the story as it should have appeared.

    Last week, a White House memo informed NASA and other agencies that
they will receive the bad news officially after the holiday weekend,
and will be expected to make their responses by the end of the week,
in order to get the final Reagan-version budget to the printer and
back before its March 10 delivery date to Congress.
    But next weekend may be too late. President Reagan is expected to
tip his hand about most of his budgetary decisions in an economic
address on Wednesday. After that, as a practical matter, the new
budget will be set in concrete.
------------------------------

Date: 15 February 1981 02:48-EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW at MIT-AI>
Subject: NASA funding priorities.
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

I see that the article does not even estimate any probabilities that
such an asteriod strike might happen.  I have been told (just hours ago,
as it happens, I think by Dr. John Doty, speaking as part of a panel at
Boskone) that this has been worked out and the probabilities are
extremely low, for very extreme values of extremely.  This project
hardly seems like something to deflect limited NASA funding into unless
the chances are pretty noticable.  Of course, it is hard to place a
value on destruction of all life on the planet, but even so you can't go
spending millions of dollars on every conceivable infinitesmally-likely
possibilty.  I am mainly worried about damage to the credibility of
the space program in general.


------------------------------

Date: 15 February 1981 03:42-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Asteroids
To: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
cc: Space at MIT-AI

1. Luis Alverez has a lot of solid evidence that Lucifer's
Hammer wiped out the dinosaurs.

2. Large asteroids able to hit the Earth are rare.  Big rocks
hittig Earth are inevitable, but the probability that it will
happen in any given century or millenium is quite low.  On the
other hand, it's something worth preventing if you ca.  The
consequences tend to be severe.  At the risk of being accused of
plugging my own works, Lucifer'S Hammer is a pretty good
treatement of the highly probable consequences of a very
improbable event.


------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 1981 0228-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Members of the Senate committees on space   
To:   energy at MIT-MC
CC:   space at MIT-MC   


An earlier message to SPACE (or maybe ENERGY) gave the current members
of the House space subcommittee.  I was wondering who their counterparts
are in the Senate.

Unfortunately, since the republicans have taken control of the senate
all my facts and figures relating to PAST committees in that body are
very inaccurate now.  Does anyone have current information?

Jim



------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 1981 0230-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Local space organizations    
To:   space at MIT-MC
CC:   energy at MIT-MC   


I am interested in finding out the people to contact for any and all
Bay Area space organizations.  Assume I know about L5 and SSDI
(both reported in the OMNI article).  Are there any other organizations
(either Bay area or national) I am missing?

Jim



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 1981 2148-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: See the Space Shuttle mockup
To: space at MIT-MC, sf-lovers at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF


OASIS presents:

		SEE THE SPACE SHUTTLE MOCKUP

The next meeting of OASIS will take place at Rockwell International in
Downey and will feature Anita Gale of Rockwell speaking on the Shuttle.

After the talk, there will be a tour of the full scale Shuttle mockup
there.

Details:

	Saturday, Feb. 28 at 7:00 p.m.
	at Rockwell International, DEI room
		(enter plant at gate 53 from Stewart and Gray Rd. or
		 Bellflower Blvd (in Downey))

This program is free and open to the public.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 1981 2143-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: writing to president, etc
To: space at MIT-MC, energy at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

When you write to the president or congressmen, make your letters short
and to the point. When the staff read them, all they will do is to check
off on a list "another one for space."  Long and elegant dissertations
on why space is good will have the same effect as a two sentence letter
saying "I think space is good, dont cut NASA's budget."


				Alan
-------

------------------------------

Date: 16 FEB 1981 0235-EST
From: REM at MIT-MC (Robert Elton Maas)
Subject: Possible bad news
To: SPACE at MIT-MC, ENERGY at MIT-MC

Reagan's budget committee (I don't know who exactly spoke)
says if Congress doesn't accept the whole thing en masse
then it'll be nitpicked to death an there won't be any
significnt budget cut.  Thus we have to get the NASA cuts
recanted NOW before it's too late, because as soon as they have
decided what they want to cut, they'll use that argument to
prevent ANY amendments.

------------------------------

Date: 16 February 1981 02:46-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Possible bad news
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, ENERGY at MIT-MC

The maximum effort last week was designed around precisely the
point REM makes: you must win before the cuts are formally
announced, because afterwared OMB will hold the line not with
the sword only, but with the battleax.
	Given that cuts are inevitable, then the space community
has a decision.  Do we try to direct the cuts?  Do we use this
as an opportunity to get a new charter for NASA?

	My view is that space is too important to be left to
government.  Thus we want to move toward making profits in
spsace as soon as possible, thus moving us into space whether
government pays or not.  This measn government has its historic
role of building roads to the new frontier and protecting/aiding
the early settlers.

This means if you buy the above that technologies are more
important than missions; that a manned industrial facility in
Low Earth Orbit is first priority, to be done by 1988 (inside
the presidential cycle) if possible; and that a manned Moon base
to use lunar resources before 1995-2000 is second priority.  It
means that SPS technology is vital, because even if we never
beams down a watt to Earth from space, we will need power in
space for industries there.  It means a "space industrial park"
with facilities for private investment and industrial modules to
be attached.

But that means also that if the budget is to be cut, and
technologies and optons preserved, then---then some missins will
have to go.  Missions which exploit technology but don't develop
it.  It puts lunar polar (search for polar ice) ahead of Halley
or Gailieo, and it measn VOIR just has to wait until we're in
space.

Of course if we go SPS for Earth power (not likely with a sane
fission reactor policy, but will SANE let us be sane?) then we
either step up the Moon mines and build it from lunar materials,
or we build a big fleet of recoverable heavy lift vehicles
(HLV).  If we go HLV, then the moon base and science and
everything else is done n third shifts and weekends, and we can
go anywhere we want, damned cheap.  If we go the other way, then
I fear we wait to see Jupiter closse up again about 1995.  Or later.

------------------------------

Date: 16 FEB 1981 0256-EST
From: REM at MIT-MC (Robert Elton Maas)
Subject: Possible bad news
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
CC: SPACE at MIT-MC, ENERGY at MIT-MC

I agree with most of what you say.  One thing, you have to be careful
about terminology regarding SPS.  To most people who know that SPS
is an abbreviation for Space Power Station, it implies microwave beaming
down to Earth.  Those who have wider visions realize there are other
ways to deliver power to Earth, like my ideas for making steel foam
out of asteroid material and enclosing Hydrogen and Oxygen in it.
You have to say explicitly if you don't at all intend to imply
sending energy to Earth, but rather just using it in space for
manufacturing, otherwise you'll be misunderstood; people will think
you mean that SPS beaming to Earth is more important than manned space
manufacturing station.  So when writing letters to gov't, be sure to
say Space Power Station to be used for space manufacturing rather
than beaming to Earth, is the top priority or whatever you say.

------------------------------

Date: 16 February 1981 02:59-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: history of "asteroid strikes Earth" scenario
To: KING at RUTGERS
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

My suspicion is that the course and the movie and Hammer were
all inspired by the same source, namely an article in Astounding
Science Fiction some years ago; I think Asimov also had a few
words, but in our case, the Astounding article certainly caused
us to include a meteor attack against Earth in the outline of
FIST OF SHIVA.
		FIST, incidentally, was to be a realistic alien
invasion novel.  Publishers reading outline sent telegram:
Ignore Aliens. Concentrate on Asteroid.
	We used a comet because (1) as you surmised, you can't
protect yourself from a comet or indeed know it will hit, and
(2) you get to see it coming a long time.  Also, (3) it's easier
to fudge on the size of the comet and the damage it does; with
asteroids it's all too easy to calculate, and the damage from a
large one is, uh, extensive...

------------------------------

Date: 16 February 1981 03:13-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Possible bad news
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, ENERGY at MIT-MC

Re: SPS, the AAS/L-5 Advisory Council does NOT recommend a
go-ahed with SPS, since there is no way to determine its
economic cost effectiveness in competition with other power
systems.  However, the SPS TECHNOLOGY is very important; it
provides insurance against other problems (fall of the Sauidi
Royal House, greter than estimated costs of railroads and
environmental cleanup from coal, political unacceptability of
fission, technical problems in fusion).  It also  provides
capabilities for lots of power IN SPACE, and it's failrly clear
that it will be needed.
	Criswell formrly of Lunar and Planetary Institute has a
scheme for power systems on the Moon; with, eventually, power to
be delivered to Earth from the Moon.  He wants to go the Moon
first way; NASA's JSC  tends to like the Heavy Lift Vehicle method.
	L-5 likes SPS because it puts us in space with income
coming down; but until we have a better handle on costs for SPS
and the other energy options it would't be wise to invet TOO
much in SPS now.  Just develop the needed technologies.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 1981 (Monday) 0941-EDT
From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus)
Subject: Re: Budgeting etx.
To:   space at MIT-MC, Energy at MIT-MC

My view of government is -- They should make many of the cuts, but
once they have done so, do NOT undo a single thing.  UNDO's the base
of the Carter system was the death of the Democratic Party last 
November.  I do think that NASA should take some cut, but not quite
what Mr. Stockman et al have in mind.
/Hank

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 1981 0923-PST
Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL
Subject: Re: Possible bad news
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow
Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
Cc: REM at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, ENERGY at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[SRI-CSL]16-Feb-81 09:23:42.GEOFF>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 16 FEB 1981 0313-EST

Re: Schemes for power systems on the Moon; which, will eventually
deliver power to the Earth.

What's the deal on the "layout" of the Moon "Countrywise", i.e.
how much do we think we deserve claim/rights to vs.  how much of
the moon do the Soviets deserve claim/rights to?  Other
countries??

First come, first served?  If so, how much deserved, etc.?

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 1981 1053-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Directed Budget Cuts    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

From what I have seen, the Stockman proposal for NASA budget cuts was directed
at several programs specifically (i.e. no fifth orbiter, no Galileo, no VOIR,
etc).  These proposed cuts did not come from NASA but rather from Stockman's
office.  Does anyone know if other agencies facing budget reductions were 
told SPECIFICALLY what would be cut, or was it more of the "I don't care how
you do it but you've got to chop out X million/billion"  variety?


------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 1981 1416-PST
From: MERRITT at USC-ISIB
Subject: Re: Possible bad news
To: Geoff at SRI-CSL, POURNE at MIT-MC
cc: REM at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, ENERGY at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 16-Feb-81 0923-PST

As far as I know (and I would have to agree with) there is no scheme for
dividing up the moon between interested parties.  It should be shared
by all the people up there and perhaps governed separately, by a UN type
mix of all those who might be involved.  Perhaps the moon should be like
another country, providing trade with any and all others.
						<>IHM<>

Ps: I could have a LONG drawn out discussion (dissertation) on the merits
of creating the separate environment, however I think that my point is
conveyed.

-------

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 1981 1602-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Interesting quote from the Speaker of the House  
To:   space at MIT-MC  


The following excerpt is from a Boston Globe article about House Speaker
Thomas P. O'Neill.  The rest of the article dealt with Speaker O'Neill's 
impressions of the incoming Reagan administration.  I felt that this excerpt
would prove interesting to the SPACE readership, but the bulk of the article
would not.  Copies of the entire Globe article will be mailed upon request
to TAW@SU-AI.

	"    NEW ENGLAND UNDER REAGAN - I would hope and trust that we wouldn't
	fare under Reagan like we did under (President Richard M.) Nixon. I
	don't think the animosity is there, like to close a Navy yard
	(Charlestown) when it shouldn't have been closed and to close a NASA
	(National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Cambridge) when it
	shouldn't have been closed because the president of the United States
	- Nixon at the time - truly hated the Kennedys, and he did it for
	spite. I don't think the animosity is there. I don't think this
	fellow is that type of man at all. "



------------------------------

Date: 17 FEB 1981 0214-EST
From: FONER at MIT-AI (Leonard N. Foner)
Subject: Re: Possible bad news
To: MERRITT at USC-ISIB
CC: Space at MIT-MC, Energy at MIT-MC

Much as I hate to mention this...  there WAS a possible method of
dividing up space, according to the UN, and that was its famous "Moon
Treaty" that wasn't.

The problems that choked almost everyone was that the supposedly fair
and honest divison of the moon with all the third world nations and so
forth would mean that there was no profit at all in going to the moon.
It was economic disaster to even attempt to make a profit off the
moon, since you'd have to give everyone a piece of the pie if they
asked for it.

Does anyone have either more detail on the actual treaty as it was
rejected, or a method to divvy up the moon without this problem?

						<LNF>


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 February 1981 02:24-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Possible bad news
To: FONER at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, ENERGY at MIT-MC, MERRITT at USC-ISIB

Text of the Moon Treaty was published by L-5 Society. Join Now.

------------------------------

Date: 17 February 1981 02:38-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I sometimes wonder: how many L-5 enthusiasts do we have on this
mailing list, and would any like to help organize a bit of help
for L-5 communications?

------------------------------

Date: 17 FEB 1981 0258-EST
From: LEECH at MIT-MC (Jonathan P. Leech)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     Recently a fellow Caltech student mentioned a JPL project called
ANTARES, apparently some sort of asteroid rendevous mission. He seemed to
feel that it is an official project. Does anyone know if it really exists?
(Of course, even if it did exist, it probably won't soon. SIGH.)
Jon Leech

------------------------------

Date: 17 FEB 1981 0948-EST
From: STEVEH at MIT-MC (Stephen C. Hill)
Subject:  ADVOCACY LETTERS
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
CC: STEVEH at MIT-MC

I work for Congress (in toto, not a specific member), and while
I agree that "only a check-mark" is counted, if you have good,
cogent points that can be used in debate, by all means include
them.  Don't ramble, or get strident, but don't be afraid to
state yur case either.
		Steve

------------------------------

Date: 18 FEB 1981 0008-EST
From: ES at MIT-MC (Gene Salamin)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     I conjecture that all this effort to "educate" the Reagan administration
about the benefits of space are totally futile.  The purpose of the NASA
budget cut has nothing to do with saving money, since the entire budget is
peanuts anyway.

     Some years age I worked for the C. S. Draper Laboratory.  They designed
the guidance system for the Apollo spacecraft.  When the Apollo project
ended, many engineers who had devoted their lives to specializing in
some detailed aspect of space technology found themselves laid off.  Now
we're going through the process again.  Sooner or later, no talented
person will want to touch space with a ten foot pole.  This, I suggest,
is the real purpose of the NASA budget cut.

     The letter writing campaign to save the NASA budget will only have
to be repeated every two years, when we have a new congress, and again with
greater effort when we have a new president.  The real hope for space lies
with private enterprise.  If we can axe the total federal budget
sufficiently, especially the totally worthless welfare system, then perhaps
there would be enough private capital to finance space development.
Perhaps our efforts should be directed toward the creator of wealth
in this country -- the industrialists, rather than the despoilers
of wealth -- the government.  A possible solution to the problem can be
found in "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 1981 1158-PST
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-KL>
Subject: L-5 address
To: space at MIT-MC

Could someone please send their address to this list?
-------
[
L-5 Society
1620 North Park Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85719
	-ota]
------------------------------

Date: 19 February 1981 02:42-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
To: ES at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

1.  The letter campaign by L-5 got the NASA budget cuts down
from $700 million as orignally put in black book to $250 million
as mentioned in President speech; and Congress will restore part
of that.

(2)  So if you care to continue to despair, well, evolution has
a way of deail;ing with those who despiar.  Me, I'm ecstatic,
and also partly pickled on good brandy.

------------------------------

Date: 19 FEB 1981 0300-EST
From: KED at MIT-MC (Keith Dow)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Could you put me on the list please?

------------------------------

Date: 19 FEB 1981 0313-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject: reagan speech
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Note that in speech Reagan said space is important, and cutsd
were only $250 million.

Black book threat was $700 million.

L-5 leadership and all those marvellous supporters out there can
feel pretty good about getting the cut reduced to something we
can live with.  Now if we redirect to make technologies primary
we can go ahead...

It could be a wonderful decade.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Feb-81  1942	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 1981 0904-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: How much is your opinion worth?   
To:   space at MIT-MC  


According to my pocket calculator, if Reagan dropped the NASA cut from
629 million to 250 million (he said a quarter of a MILLION on TV.  I watched
the speech twice for verification) that means that SOMETHING caused him to
NOT cut 379 million.  If the cause was letters to the President from L-5
and Star Trek and other just plain concerned people, then (assuming an
optimistic 20,000 letters) each letter for space was worth $18,950.
Of course, this is only playing with numbers and not really valid across
the whole spectrum of political response to public pressure.  But it
does give you an answer to use the next time someone tells you that
the government doesn't listen, and that their opinion isn't worth anything.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 FEB 1981 0827-EST
From: REM at MIT-MC (Robert Elton Maas)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Engine test on shuttle this morning, 7 EST, 4 PST (plus a few minutes
I forget), live on ABC "Good Morning America" (I don't know if us
west coast people will get 3-hr delay or what).

A NASA person responsible for insulating tiles was on J.Carson tonite
and will be on again this coming night (friday) to finish what he
couldn't finish tonite (thursday).  J.Carson is a SPACE ENTHUSIAST
at heart.

------------------------------

Date: 21 February 1981 03:13-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: How much is your opinion worth?   
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The actual number of letters was smaller than 20,000.
We are now getting a bit over 100 / day with the number
increasing.

Keep it up; we need now to get a New Start authorized for the
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Base.  Congress will put it in; we have to
see that the White House is willing to allow it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 1981 1512-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: In case you hadn't heard
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a030  0126  21 Feb 81
PM-Shuttle,420
Jubilation After Test Dampened By Strike
By HOWARD BENEDICT
Associated Press Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - A surpgise strike by key aerospace
workers has quenched some of the official jubilation over the
successful test-firing of the space shuttle Columbia's mammoth
engines.
    Although officials have a plan for bringing in outside employees to
fill the critical jobs, Kennedy Space Center director Richard Smith
said the striking machinists perform vital support work and a
prolonged walkout could mean postponement of the launch, planned for
April 7.
    The three engines of the reusable spacecraft fired perfectly for 20
seconds Friday morning, spewing flame and steam over the launch area
and sending a thunder clap rolling across the cape.
    Officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said
they were confident that finally, after two years of delays, Columbia
was ready to take astronauts into orbit.
    ''The operation of the engines was fantastic,'' launch director
George Page said.
    ''From an engineering standpoint, it was totally perfect,'' said
J.R. Thompson, engine project manager.
    But immediately after the test, 881 members of a machinists' union
walked off their jobs on the shuttle launch pad. The walkout initially
jeopardized some operations such as purging Columbia's fuel tanks,
but managers filled in for the strikers.
    The workers, members of the International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, are embroiled in a contract dispute with
Boeing Services International.
    The union has been working without a contract since the old pact
expired Jan. 23. Richard Deem, the federal mediator handling the
negotiations, said there has been little progress in bringing the two
sides together, with money matters the main issue. The two sides are
to meet again Monday.
    Smith said Boeing has a strike plan that includes bringing in
outside management personnel to handle critical jobs.
    ''It will be several days before we see just how effective that plan
is,'' Smith tol reporters.
    Among the observers of the test-firing were John Young and Robert
Crippen, the astronauts who are to fly Columbia on her 54-hour maiden
voyage.
    Also observing were about 20 other astronauts - all of whom have
aspirations to fly as the fleet of reusable shuttles grows in the next
threee years to four, and perhaps five. The space ships will be used
for a variety of civilian, scientific and military missions.
    
ap-ny-02-21 0428EST
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 FEB 1981 0834-EST
From: REM at MIT-MC (Robert Elton Maas)
Subject: In case you hadn't heard
To: OTA at SU-AI
CC: SPACE at MIT-MC

Well, at least those striking machinists had the decency to wait until
right after the test firing, where they'd have minimal destructive effect
on the project but maximal media exposure.  That's an encouraging aspect.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 1981 1117-PST
From: Robert Maas <REM at SU-AI>
Subject: Military use of space to prevent nuclear exchange   
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC  

NEWS BULLETIN -- Heard this morning on KCBS.  Somebody might want to
retrieve the AP/NYT story. -- Researchers at Lawrence Livermore Lab
have successfully tested (at one of the underground nuclear test ranges)
a high-power X-ray laser that is powerful enough that if deployed in
space it could destroy an ICBM with a single blast instead of having
to train its beam on a single spot on the missile and gradually warm
that portion of the missile until it melted, as the prior (chemical)
lasers had to do.  This means we could possibly ward off a nuclear
exchange by destroying all ICBMs that come at us.  This means the
point that military use of space might someday become fesible has
already reached us and in a beneficial (defensive, anti-nuclear-war)
way instead of in a destructive (offensive, pro-nuclear-way), and
we are more likely to continue getting funds for the shuttle and LEO
(Low Earth Orbit docking facility and "Space Operations Center") than
before this major revelation.

The future in space is today at Honeywell xxx whoops Lawrence Livermore.



------------------------------

Date: 23 FEB 1981 1859-EST
From: REM at MIT-MC (Robert Elton Maas)
Subject: Update on high-power X-ray laser for knocking out ICBMs
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Just heard on radio more info, specifically that one of these
lasers capable of knocking out one ICBM in a single shot is small
enough to be sent up "on a single space shuttle flight".  The more
of them you have up, the more missiles you can shoot down. Sounds
like there'll be an infinite supply of these laser-weapons wanting
to get a ride into space, thus guaranteeing that the shuttle will make
money (not that this in doubt since all early flights are already booked
solid literally, like solid pack tuna I imagine, but now there's
added insurance that there's a market for building more and more orbiter
vehicles once the first four demonstrate that the technology works).

[The source of this story was appearently an article in this weeks
Aviation Week and Space Technology, Feb 23, page 25.  It makes rather
interesting reading you might try looking it up. -ota]

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 1981 0312-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Series on the Shuttle   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

A seies of articles on the shuttle has been made available through the
news service.  Below is the first of three articles.  This article was munged
somehow, so in some sections it is incomplete.




n038  1158  23 Feb 81
BC-SHUTTLE-NASA 4takes
(Newhouse 001)
First of three articles suggested for use beginning Sunday
By PATRICK YOUNG
Newhouse News Service
    WASHINGTON - The United States is looking ahead to a time when
astronauts roar into Earth orbit almost routinely.
    But that all depends on the space shuttle - a craft 12 years in the
making, two years late, 27 percent over budget, untested in space,
and plagued by problems.
    Columbia, the first shuttle intended for inhospitable space, awaits
its maiden voyage from Launch Complex 39-A at the Kennedy Space
Center in Florida. Its crew - astronauts John Young and Robert
Crippen - also await the flight, now scheduled no earlier than April
7.
    They repeatedly express the view that Columbia will carry them
without serious mishap through their 54 1/2-hour mission. ''We obviously
think it's safe or we wouldn't be doing it,'' Young says.
    It is not a view shared universally.
    During its development, the shuttle has suffered well-publicized
problems with its main engines and the ''tiles'' that protect it from
the intense heat of re-entry. Despite Columbia's successful engine
test on Feb. 20, some still wonder whether these troubles have been
completely corrected.
    The shuttle, by any standard, is a craft bolnd



BC-SHUTTLE-NASA 1stadd
(Newhouse 002)
Young - WASHINGTOGVThe last three American astronauts in space rendezvoused in
earth-orbit with two Soviet cosmonauts in 1975. Since then, the
Russians have sent aloft more than three dozen humans. Cosmonauts
have logged more than twice the 22,493 hours American astronauts have
spent in space, and two Russians hold the record for the most time on
a single flight - 185 days.
    Internationally ''they have made points by taking up a Czech, a
Pole, an East German, a Bulgarian, a Hungarian, a Vietnamese and a
Cuban,'' says Charles Sheldon II, a specialist on Soviet space
activity at the Library of Congress. Later this year, a Mongolian and
Romanian are to orbit in Russian craft, and a Frenchman will fly next
year.
    The Russians reportedly are working on their own reuseable
spaceship. Former Defense Secretary Harold Brown told Congress last
year the craft appears similar to Dyna-Soar, a project this country
dropped in the mid-1960s.
    The Russians have proved little help in making their plans known.
''They deliberately seem to say contradictory things, so it is
anyone's guess,'' Sheldon says.
    At a time when detente between the United States and the Soviet
Union is damaged if not dying, there appears to be a mild rebirth in
the idea of a ''space race'' between the two superpowers.
    ''I feel a bit embarrassed nationally by how the Soviets have outrun
us, given our resources,'' says a university scientist long active in
the space program.
    If the United States is to re-establish its preeminence in
manned-space operations, the shuttle is vital. The nation has no
other way to launch astronauts, and it would take a decade to develop
a new manned craft.
    NASA and the Pentagon know it, and realize the impact a major
failure during Columbia's first flight might have.
    ''Depending on the circumstances, it could be a severe blow to
national pride and prestige,'' says Philip E. Culbertson, Lovelace's
assistant for Space Transportation Systems.
    ''On the other hand, we have got to recognize that the first flight
of any space vehicle has got hazards and unknowns not present when
you fly it more regularly. It seems to me the nation must be
intellectually prepared for a setback. It is a very difficult mission
to fly, with a very complex machine.''
    The shuttle concept evolved from a ''what next?'' study that began
in September 1969, two months after the first manned landing on the
moon. Such missions as a manned)ested, should be a reuseable spacecraft.
    NASA spent two years on cost, engineering and design studies. The
project won President Nixon's approval in 1972.
    Under pressure from the White House to keep costs low, the space
agency estimated the shuttle's development costs at $5.1 billion in
1971 dollars. The program's projected cost through the first four
shuttle flights is now $9.6 billion in 1981 dollars, equal to $6.5
billion in 1971 dollars - a cost overrun after inflation of 27
percent.
    During most of the 1970s and even now, much of NASA's financial
resources went to the shuttle, leaving other space programs wanting.
    ''Science and applications suffered a great deal by the fact the
shuttle was the central focus of the space program; that is a matter
of firm fact,'' says James Van Allen of the University of Iowa,
discoverer of the earth-girdling radiation belts that bear his name.
    Among the projects postponed or delayed because of the shuttle's
costs: Galileo, an orbiter and atmospheric probe to Jupiter; a
twin-craft look at the sun's two poles called the International Solar
Polar Mission, and the Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar, a craft to study
the surface of earth's closest planetary neighbor. A proposed mission
to look at Halley's Comet was never approved.
    Scientists hope NASA will find more money for them once the shuttle
is operational.
    The shuttle consists of three basic units: the airplane-like
orbiter, which can carry up to seven people; two solid-fuel booster
rockets, and an external tank that provides more than 526,000 gallons
of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to fuel the orbiter's three main
rocket engines.
    At launch, both the booster rockets and the shuttle engines fire.
The booster rockets burn for two minutes, dropping off at about 32
miles altitude. They are designed to fall into the ocean, be
retrieved by special ships and refurbished, and be used again. About
8 1/2 minutes into the flight, the main shuttle engines stop. The
external tank drops off and burns up in the atmosphere.
    The shuttle crew can orbit earth as high as 600 miles. Once its
mission is finished, the orbiter drops into the atmosphere and glides
to a landing.
    ''It's a totally different flying machine,'' says Young, the veteran
of four space flights who describes his re-entries in Gemini and
Apollo craft as ''kind of like flying a brick.''
    Columbia's first flight is to end at Edwards Air Force Base in
California, with a back-up site at the White Sands Missile Test Range
in New Mexico. Later flights will land at Kennedy Space Center and
Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
    Once refurbished, the orbiter is designed to fly again. In all, each
shuttle orbiter is supposed to make some 100 flights.
    Columbia is temporarily equipped with ejection seats. But these can
be used only at certain times during launch, and even then survival
chances are uncertain. The seats will be removed after the craft's
first few flights.
    The shuttle doesn't land like an airplane. It is a
computer-controlled glider and has no engine for flying around if the
crew overshoots the runway.
    NASA has three additional orbiters on order, and hopes for a fifth.
Each craft is named after a famous sailing ship. Challenger is set
for delivery in April 1982, followed by Discovery and Atlantis.
    Shuttle proponents have long argued that it made no sense to throw
away a rocket every time a satellite or manned craft was launched.
    ''Our space program to date has been the equivalent of loading a
ship in Norfolk, sailing to South Hampton, England, off-loading the
cargo and sinking the ship,'' says Mark Chartrand of the National
Space Institute, a nonprofit space-advocacy group.
    The reuseable shuttle is essentially a truck to haul things into
space. It can launch satellites or carry experiments in its
boxcar-size cargo bay. It can also pick up satellites to repair or
upreturn them to earth.
    This latter capability is particularly important for the giant,
sophisticated, long-life satellites planned in the future. ''I can't
conceive of building something like Mount Palomar (Observatory) and
saying iu0
will abandon it,'' Culbertson says.
    Originally, NASA argued that a reuseable craft could operate far
cheaper than expendable rockets. But it now appears doubtful the
shuttle will prove much less expensive per flight. Any large savings
must await a second generation of shuttles in the 1990s.
    The shuttle's development problems have been expensive. The two most
serious were the orbiter's main engines and its heat-shield tiles.
Yet experts say these problems were nothing extraordinary in such a
complex undertaking. One notes the United States has had problems
developing its launch vehicles back to the 1950s.
    ''When you develop something, that means you really don't know how
to do it. So you make mistakes along the way,'' says Eugene Covert of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who chaired a National
Academy of Sciences study of the shuttle's engine problems.
    Covert cites one example to illustrate the technological
sophistication involved. Each main engine has an oxygen-fuel pump
that generates 29,413 horsepower, yet is small enough to fit into a
trash can.
    ''That's pretty impressive when you consider that engines in
automobiles only put out a couple of hundred horsepower,'' Covert
says.
    NASA says the embarrassing engine fires and failures are now history.
    ''We have never had the kind of engine malfunction that would have
destroyed the vehicle,'' Culbertson says. ''We are satisfied we have
identified and corrected all the problems in the mainn,re)
    The engine problems were somewhat anticipated. The tile troubles
were not.
    ''Basically, we underestimated the real difficulty and it took us
some time to really work our way out of that problem,'' Lovelace says.
    In the past, the bottoms of spacecraft have been covered with
materials that wore away under the 2,700-degree Fahrenheit
temperatures of re-entry and carried heat away with them. This kept
spacecraft from burning up.
    The shuttle relies on its tiles for heat protection - 30,922 on the
underside of each orbiter. The tiles are actually lightweight,
fragile bricks fashioned of silica and fibers. While metal-melting
hot on the outside, they keep the orbiter's aluminum skin at 350
degrees.
    The tiles themselves caused no real problem. It was the way they
were originally bonded to the shuttle. Once the problem was
recognized after stress analyses and wind tunnel tests, costly and
hopefully successful corrective measures were taken.
    ''I would say there is one chance in 1,000 that we will lose a tile
or more than one,'' Culbertson says. ''Beyond that, I would say that
if we lose any, there is only one chance in 10 that the loss will
manifest itself as a serious problem.''
    Throughout NASA and the aerospace community there exists confidence
that the shuttle will succeed. For some, the confidence is newly
found.
    ''I would say the whole thing has a high probability of success, and
I am one of the original doubters,'' Grey says. ''They have done a
helluva good job of catching up during the last year.''
    (NEXT: SHUTTLE AND SCIENCE.)
SG END YOUNG
    
nyt-02-23-81 1519est
***************



------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 1981 0313-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: nasa budget cuts   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a250  1648  19 Feb 81
AM-Space Shuttle,350
By HOWARD BENEDICT
Associated Press Writer

...
    NASA space shuttle officials, meanwhile, expressed pleasure that
Reagan had strongly supported the project in his budget message to
Congress. While the president proposed slicing some scientific space
projects, he said money to develop a fleet of four shuttles, with
option on a fifth, would be maintained to meet civilian and critical
defense needs.
    There had been some concern in the space agency that Reagan would
delay building the fourth shuttle and eliminate funds for the fifth.
    These five space ships will form the heart of the U.S. space program
- civilian, scientific and military - for the remainder of this
century.
    Each will land on earth like an airliner and be capable of 100 or
more roundtrips into orbit.
    
ap-ny-02-19-81 1948est
***************



------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 1981 0317-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

second on shuttle series
n044  1313  23 Feb 81
(Newhouse 006)
Second of three articles suggested for use beginning Sunday
By PATRICK YOUNG
Newhouse News Service
    WASHINGTON - It is not quite the stuff of ''Buck Rogers'' or ''Star
Trek,'' but space buffs envision the 1980s as the beginning of a new
era of space exploitation.
    They see a time of giant communications platforms and sophisticated
satellites to explore the resources of Earth and the mysteries of the
deep universe. They expect scientific experiments never tried before.
They even foresee some industrial operations in orbit.
    But all this depends on the space shuttle, intended as the world's
first reuseable spaceship. The craft, now scheduled to make its
maiden voyage no earlier than April 7, is the key.
    ''What's at stake is quite literally our future in space,'' says
Mark Chartrand of the National Space Institute, a nonprofit
space-advocacy group.
    Consider the Space Telescope, a 43-foot, 12-ton instrument with a
life expectancy of 20 to 25 years. When it finally orbits above the
light-distorting haze and turbulence of Earth's atmosphere, perhaps
in 1985, this 94-inch optical telescope will enable astronomers to
see seven times farther into the heavens then they can today.
    The shuttle will carry the Space Telescope to its 300-mile-high
station. Over the years, crews will visit the telescope to make
needed repairs. And every five to seven years, they will load the
instrument into the shuttle's boxcar-size cargo bay and return it to
Earth for refurbishing. ''A program like the Space Telescope - a
large, long-term observatory that would be serviceable throughout its
lifetime - depends on the shuttle,'' says Jeffrey D. Rosendhal of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ''Clearly when you
make a fraction of a billion-dollar investment and plan to operate
for 25 years, shuttle retrieval comes into play.''
    There are four basic uses for the shuttle:
    - First, to orbit and service satellites. NASA launches not only its
own craft but those of nonmilitary agencies, foreign governments and
communications companies. The military also will use the shuttle to
orbit its spies in the sky.
    NASA envisions a number of future giant satellites, including X-ray
and gamma-ray counterparts of the Space Telescope. It also would like
a space station, one more sophisticated than Russia's Salyut 6 now in
orbit.
    ''We think one of these days the United States ought to have a
permanent space station up, and this vehicle (the shuttle) will allow
us to do it for one-tenth the cost,'' says astronaut John Young,
commaner of the first shuttle flight.
    - Second, as a platform for scientific observations. In effect, the
craft would be a manned orbiting laboratory to observe Earth, its
atmosphere, its near-space environment, the sun and planets, and deep
space. Biological, medical and material-processing studies also would
be done.
    - Third, to conduct interactive experiments. For example, physicists
want to inject energy into Earth's magnetic fields to learn what
happens.
    ''We have never been able to do interactive experiments,'' says
Charles Pellerin Jr., deputy director of NASA's spacelab flight
division. ''Space experiments in the past have been passive, in that
you observed something. With the shuttle, we will do things like
shoot a particle beam into the (Van Allen) radiation belts.''
    Such tests require devices weighing many tons. They will be possible
with the shuttle because of its carrying capacity, expected to reach
65,000 pounds in several years.
    - Fourth, as a place to process materials. Certain products -
vaccines, ballbearings, semiconductor crystals - might benefit from
being made in the zero-gravity or extreme cold of space.
    ''Another potential aspect is the ability to mix light metals with
heavy metals and in a gravity-free environment have them remain mixed
as they cool to create new alloys,'' says George Baker of NASA's
office of space transportation systems.
    In recent years, Russian cosmonauts have conducted a number of such
experiments.
    ''They have made tremendous headway in the number of exotic alloy
metals,'' says Charles Sheldon II, an expert on Soviet space
activities at the Library of Congress. ''In industrialization, they
have to be ahead.''
    American companies aren't clammering to conduct such experiments.
But NASA sees them coming around. ''Once someone does it and makes a
buck on it, others will follow,'' Baker says.
    To spur interest among potential shuttle users, NASA has joined with
the McDonnell Douglas Corp., an aerospace company, to test a
drug-processing technique in space.
    The space agency is also offering the public the chance to use the
shuttle - for research only. ''We don't allow people to fly coins or
stamps,'' Baker says.
    But for $5),000 to9$10,0, any company, university, government
agency or private citizen can fly a small shuttle experiment - no
larger than five cubic feet and no heavier than 200 pounds - on a
space-available basis.
    NASA calls these its ''Getaway Specials.'' So far, it has collected
$500 down payments for each of more than 300 such experiments.
    ''We have a selfish motive,'' Baker says. ''We anticipate that in
some of the potential industrial applications, the results will lead
to the use of the shuttle on a larger scale.''
    The first four shuttle flights are primarily designed to test the
craft. But on its second voyage, planned for this fall, the shuttle
will carry seven experiments - including a new radar to help map
natural resources and an instrument to measure the carbon monoxide
concentrations in the atmosphere.
    In 1983, the first spacelab is scheduled to fly in the shuttle's
hold. This sophisticated laboratory is being built by the 10-nation
European Space Agency at a cost of more than $850 million.
    The spacelab consists of a pressurized module, in which scientists
can work in their shirt sleeves, and an unpressurized instrument
pallet. The two can be flown together or separately. The pallet
experiments can be controlled from the spacelab's manned section, the
shuttle cabin or the ground.
    The spacelab will allow scientists to work in orbit without
undergoing the extensive training required of astronauts. And NASA
officials strongly argue that humans will play vital roles in space
research and exploitation.
    Rosendhal cites the solar discoveries made during the three Skylab
missions, when astronauts were able to recognize events on the sun
and quickly train instruments on them.
    ''Man's presence will have a very practical benefit in exploiting
space for the benefit of mankind,'' predicts Alan M. Lovelace, NASA's
acting administrator.
    ''It is certainly the case we can do things that are well automated
and work fantastically well. But man can do things. His judgment and
his ability to exercise that judgment are going to be very important
to our ability to exploit space.''
    But the ability to work in space won't ultimately determine the
growth of space industries. ''In the long run, it is going to come
down to economics,'' says Eugene Covert of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
SG END YOUNG
    
nyt-02-23-81 1618est
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 February 1981 1801-EST (Tuesday)
From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60)
To: energy at MIT-MC, space at MIT-MC
Subject:  Nuclear pumped X ray zapsat

In the AWST article the satellite is small enough that "several"
could be launched in a shuttle flight.  Or they could be put into
space in time of crisis on ICBM warheads.  Each satellite has,
in the artist's depiction 32 rods of a "high density material",
with each rod being an individually steerable laser.  When
the small nuclear device in the body of the satellite detonates
this porcipine satellite shoots 32 bursts in as many directions,
each one on the order of 10^15 watts and 10^-9 seconds, enough
to destroy targets by absorbed energy shockwave (and you can't
reflect X rays very well).  Of course, each satellite can be used
only once. The rods look pretty thin in the picture, but presumably
their aperture is large enough to give adequate collimation at 10^3
km range. The jubilation is because the concept was successfully
demonstarted in an underground test within the last few months.
	I wish the people who read this list who were involved
with this could tell us more.

------------------------------

Date: 25 February 1981 02:54-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Nuclear pumped X ray zapsat
To: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A
cc: ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

Come on, Hans, you know that no one is really building zapsts,
and no one is really interested in destabilizing the arms race
by engaging in research on stuff like that.

------------------------------

Date: 25 February 1981 02:59-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Update on high-power X-ray laser for knocking out ICBMs
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: "TO:" at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

In Strategy of Technology, Possony and I argued for the concept
of "threat tube sterilization"; ie a means of directing the
energy from a nuclear explosion along a corridor in space, thus
neutralizing everything in taht corridor.  We were not permitted
to talk about means for accomplishing this in an unclassified
book, and we were severely chastised by a number of "arms
control theorists" for our "technically illogical fantasies."

------------------------------

Date: 25 February 1981 03:01-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Series on the Shuttle   
To: JPM at SU-AI
cc: "TO:" at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

Holy catfish.  I've known Patrick Young for years.  He was
medical writer on the National Observer before that folded.  A
good lad, but rally, "inhospitable space"?

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 1981 0252-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: third story on the shuttle   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n036  1124  24 Feb 81
BC-SHUTTLE-MILITARY 2takes
(Newhouse 001)
Last of three articles suggested for use beginning Sunday
By PATRICK YOUNG
Newhouse News Service
    WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is counting on the space shuttle to orbit
its satellites and ensure a continued U.S. military presence in space.
    But missing in much of the publicity surrounding the shuttle is this
vital importance to national security, and the Defense Department's
role in saving the project.
    Back in the early 1970s, NASA wooed and won military support for the
shuttle. The Air Force committed itself to the reuseable craft as its
sole vehicle to orbit satellites, including its ''spies-in-the-sky''
that watch the Soviet Union.
    Largely because the Pentagon wanted it, the problem-plagued and
costly shuttle has survived 10 years of criticism and budget crises.
    Now the Pentagon faces a potential crisis of its own. It needs the
shuttle soon, if its satellite launches are to remain on a tight
schedule. But the shuttle has yet to be tested in space. Its first
orbital flight is scheduled for no earlier than April 7.
    ''Our current plan is to phase out all boosters (rockets),'' says
Brig. Gen. Ralph H. Jacobson, the Air Force's director of space
systems at the Pentagon. ''We've made arrangments so that we're
somewhat insensitive to short delays. If there is a major problem
with the shuttle, we would have to make other arrangements to launch
our satellites.''
    Some satellites set for orbit beginning in 1983 are too large and
heavy to be orbited by the Titan III, the Air Force's standard
rocket. If the shuttle can't be used, costly and time-consuming
modifications to the Titan III will be required.
    The shuttle is drawing the civilian and military space programs
closer together than ever. And at times, Pentagon needs may dominate.
By joint agreement, the Air Force can preempt any shuttle flight to
fly a national defense mission, a power that some NASA officials
worry could be misused.
    ''We are very sensitive to the fact this would affect other
payloads,'' the Air Force's Jacobson says. ''We will only act to
change schedules on national security grounds.''
    So far, the Air Force and NASA have worked in surprisingly close
harmony. Yet some fear persists in the space agency that a major
shuttle failure could lead to the Air Force taking total control.
    The Air Force will use the shuttle essentially for the same tasks as
NASA - orbiting satellites and conducting space experiments. But the
purpose will be different.
    ''While peace may be our profession, being prepared for war is our
business, and we must be prepared to protect our vital interests in
space as well as those in land, sea and air,'' says Lt. Gen. J.F.
O'Malley, Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and
readiness. ''The potential for space to become a more hostile
environment is increasing.''
    Military satellites include communication, navigation, weather and
spy craft.
    Satellites relay about two-thirds of the military's long-range
communications. Intelligence satellites monitor foreign military
activities and food production, and watch for specific flashes of
light that signal the launch of a Soviet intercontinental ballistic
missile or a nuclear blast in space. Satellites could be used to
guide U.S. missiles to enemy targets.
    ''As we are denied more and more observation posts around the world
in places like Iran and Ethiopia, we become even more reliant on
space,'' O'Malley says.
    ''In fact, many would say that arms-control agreements owe their
very existence to space systems. Without the capability to monitor
treaty compliance with space systems, negotiations which attempt to
limit strategic weapons would be considerably more difficult.''
    The United States is a party to international agreements designed to
ensure the peaceful uses of space. But these pacts would likely
crumble in wartime.
    The Soviet Union is developing killer satellites to destroy or knock
out sensors on orbiting craft. Russia reportedly tested a killer
satellite successfully on Feb. 2.
    There is concern, as well, that the Soviets could orbit a crude
laser weapon in as little as five years capable of crippling or
destroying U.S. satellites with concentrated beams of high-energy
light.
    Although the Air Force says it has no plans to arm the shuttle with
a laser cannon and send it into space as a ''Star Wars'' gunship - as
has been suggested - one of its early military flights will test a
laser-aiming device.
    ''We're testing our ability to point for a lot of reasons, not just
a laser weapon,'' Jacobson says. ''Laser communications - cross links
from satellite to satellite - have the advantage that they can
transmit much more information, compared to the frequencies we are
using now.''
    Although the shuttle is to play an essential role in national
security, most of its costs come out of NASA's budget. This was part
of the agreement that won Pentagon support for the project.
    NASA is paying for the shuttle's design, development, production and
testing - a cost expected to total at least $9.6 billion. Operating
the program will cost billions more.
    The Air Force is investing $2.9 billion. This is mostly to provide a
shuttle facility at Vandenberg Air Force Base, 150 miles north of Los
Angeles, and to develop a two-stage booster rocket called the
Interial Upper Stage (IUS). The Air Force will pay NASA, at bargain
rates, to use the shuttle.
    Flights will operate from Vandenberg - on missions that need to fly
over the Earth's poles - and from Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Polar-orbit satellites provide better coverage of the Soviet Union.
But civilian and military shuttle flights will be made from both
bases.
    Constructions crews are now at work on Launch Complex 6, the
shuttle's home at Vandenberg. The base's 8,000-foot runway will be
expanded to 15,000 feet for shuttle landings. Eventually, more than
20 missions a year will fly from Vandenberg.
    The Air Force also plans a $117 million Consolidated Space
Operations Center, probably near Colorado Springs, Colo., to carry
out two missions.
    First, it will plan and control military shuttle flights. Second, it
will share the job of controlling military satellites with the
current Air Force control center in Sunnyvale, Calif. By 1985, the
Air Force expects to be operating 65 satellites.
    The solid-fuel IUS rocket - designed to boost satellites from the
shuttle's low orbit to higher altitudes - is two years behind
schedule and $221 million over its original cost estimate of $243
million. The Boeing Co., which is developing the IUS, wants the Air
Force to pay another $76 million.
    So the Air Force, too, faces costly development problems in the
shuttle program. But the big worry remains the success of the shuttle
itself.
    Jacobson, for one, believes the United States should see the project
through, whatever the problems.
    ''It's a marvelous technological achievement that is just as complex
as going to the moon,'' he says. ''It puts the rest of the world on
notice that the United States is a technological power.''
SG END YOUNG
    
nyt-02-24-81 1442est
**********



------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 1981 0254-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Space Law
To:   space at MIT-MC  

AM-Shuttle-Law, Bjt,530
Ole Miss Professor Keeps Eye On Space Law
By DAVID SPEER
Associated Press Writer
    JACKSON, Miss. (AP) - When the space shuttle rockets into space this
spring, a University of Mississippi professor wants to make sure it
doesn't run afoul of the law.
    Dr. Stephen Gorove of the Ole Miss law school is an expert on how
domestic and international law applies to outer space. He has
published two books on space law - the most recent being ''The Space
Shuttle and the Law'' - and helps put out The Journal of Space Law,
the only journal in the world devoted to the legal problems arising
from trips beyond our world.
    ''Really, the launching of the space shuttle will probably be the
most significant event that has taken place since the beginning of the
Space Age,'' Gorove said. ''I think that the potentials are just
enormous.
    ''It is going to open up my field - insurance, legal problems,
criminal jurisdictions, civil liability. It's an enormous field which
is opening up entirely new possibilities for government and
industry.''
    Gorove said the thorniest question of law, as it applies to the
shuttle, is when and where the craft is considered a spaceship and
where it might be considered an airplane.
    ''Space law should be applied to the shuttle,'' he said. ''In the
current state of the technology, it is a spacecraft. If it is going to
someday in the future fly as an aircraft flies, then we will have to
take another look at it.''
    The shuttle is powered into space with rockets, much like previous
U.S. spacecraft. But the reusable transportation system, unlike
previous U.S. manned venturers which splashed down into the ocean,
will glide back to earth on stubby wings to make an unpowered landing
on an airstrip at Edwards Air Force Base in California.
    The question of spacecraft or airplane is important because
different laws apply to the two types of vehicles, he said.
    Space law is set down in four principal treaties, which set
jurisdictional boundaries and liability limits and help officials deal
with problems of liability in case of accidents and in insurance
coverage, Gorove said. A fifth treaty - the moon treaty - is being
considered by the United States.
    The shuttle's cargo bay will hold 65,000 pounds of scientific
apparatus and much space on future flights already has been reserved
for various projects.
    What would happen if part of the shuttle broke loose as it was
gliding to Earth and fell through the roof of a house?
    ''NASA has discretionary authority to the tune of up to $25,000 to
pay damages,'' Gorove said. He said the limit was raised from $5,000
when Skylab fell in July 1979.
    He said the only way for a U.S. citizen to receive higher damages
would be to to file suit in federal court and prove specific
negligence.
    ''I should stress that in all these cases specific negligence is
hard to prove,'' Gorove said. ''Who can say whose specific negligence
caused the failure?''
    Although much of space law is taken up with civil responsibility,
insurance and damage claims, the question of criminal jurisdiction
also has been raised with manned space projects such as the space
shuttle or future space colonies.
    ''What if someone commits some kind of crime in the space shuttle,
in air space or in outer space?'' Gorove said. ''Who has the authority
to try and to punish them?''
    
ap-ny-02-16 1324EST
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Feb-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 FEB 1981 2031-EST
From: KARAS at MIT-MC (Brian J. Karas)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Would you please include me in your mailing
list? Thank you....

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Feb-81  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 1981 0856-PST
From: Wilkins at SRI-KL
Subject: request
To:   space at MIT-MC

Can I get on the space mailing list and perhaps get some back issues
of the digest?  Thanks, David Wilkins
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Feb-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 1981 0803-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: NASA budget cuts - not again!
To:   energy at MIT-MC, space at MIT-MC    

a100  0744  27 Feb 81
    
PM-Budget Cuts,190
Stockman Reviews Virtually Every Agency
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Budget director David A. Stockman said today he is
reviewing additional budget cuts in virtually every government agency
in seeking further spending reductions.
    ''We have reviewed every agency from the Veterans Administration to
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and there will
be cuts across that entire spectrum,'' he said at a briefing for
reporters.
    The administration had targeted $41.4 billion in program cuts until
this week, when it discovered it would have to cut up to $6 billionn.
    Stockman would not identify specific new areas of cuts. He said the
administration had ''unequivocably no'' plans to seek new tax-raising
measures.
    Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige said the administration already
has proposed cutting his department's budget by 25 percent, and added
that he believes an additional 7 percent to 8 percent reduction could
be achieved.
    Baldrige said the administration also plans to reduce department
personnel by 8 percent, or 2,600 employees, by the end of the 1982
fiscal year. These reductions would come through a combination of
layoffs and attrition, he said.
    
ap-ny-02-27 1048EST
**********



------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 1981 0319-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Nuclear energy to be cut along with NASA    
To:   space at MIT-MC, energy at MIT-MC    

a219  1232  27 Feb 81
AM-Economy, Bjt,580
Administration Vows to Cut Deeper as New Report Shows Economy
Weakening
By OWEN ULLMANN
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The Reagan administration vowed Friday to cut
deeper into ''the entire spectrum'' of federal spending as a new
government report showed the economy still weakening from the strain
of high inflation and interest rates.
    Budget Director David A. Stockman refused to divulge any of the new
budget-trimming areas, but told reporters that few programs would be
spared. ''We have reviewed every agency from the Veterans
Administration to NASA,'' he declared.
.....
    Other new targets, it was learned, include the Veterans
Administration, farm price support programs, the Job Corps and other
employment training, and nuclear energy projects.
.....
    A spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget said Stockman
expected to settle on the complete list of savings by this weekend.
    
ap-ny-02-27 1536EST
**********



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 March 1981 04:13-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: NASA budget cuts - not again!
To: JPM at SU-AI
cc: ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

With a sensible policy and goals, we could live with even
further cuts.  Not enjoy them, mind you, but live with them.
Howver, NASA, rather than developing a sense of priorities and
hen working toward them, chooses to give itself multiple
sclerosis.  "Save everything, even if you don't do anything well
as a result" is their philosophy.

Perhaps, though, something can be done about it fro the Hill.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Administrivia:

Several times recently requests to be added to this mailing list have gone
to the general distribution.  Normally I filter these out but on those
days I was gone and didn't get to filter the stuff.  In general, such
requests should be directed to me (OTA@SAIL) or to SPACE-
ENTHUSIASTS-REQUEST@MC (or SPACE-REQUEST@MC).  Please remember to mention
this to anyone you tell about the list. -ota

------------------------------

Date:  6 Mar 1981 2250-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: So you think our letters did some good...
To: energy at MIT-MC, space at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF


Many letters were apparently sent to Reagan about the proposed NASA
budget cuts.  The following appeared on the front page of the Wall
Street Journal today:

SLOW MOTION:  Reagan reports the White House has received 100,000
letters and telegrams since he unveiled his economic program on Feb. 18,
but only 5,500 have been opened and read so far.  Press Secretary Brady
explains: "We've hired the Postal Service to do it."



				Alan
-------

------------------------------

Date: 7 March 1981 03:13-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: So you think our letters did some good...
To: KATZ at USC-ISIF
cc: ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

1.	They have tabulated 8,000 pro-space letters.  These will
be subpoenaed by the Space Committee when the time comes.
	2. Many L-5 People who wrote to the White House have
received answers to their letters.  Moreover, two special
assistants to the president are L-5 members and look out for,
and call attention to, pro-space mail.
		3. Congressmen Newt Gingrich and Tribble have
sent circular letters to all Congresspeople which begin "Dear
Colleague, Have you noticed a lot of mail in favor of NASA and
the space program?  We have..."
			4. The Report of the Citizen's Advisory
Council on National Space Policy (created by joint action of the
L-5 Society and American Astronautical Society) is completed,
and will be signed by at least 20 Republican Congresspeople
before delivery to Stockman.
	5. Therefore, don't give up; now IS THE TIME TO INCREASE
THE MAIL AND COMMUNICATIONS.  We are definitely having an
effect.  Jerry Grey, Administrator for Public Policy of AIAA,
told Mark Hopkins that L-5 letters and mailgrams and telephone
calls over the weekend following the Chicago Sun Times "Black
Book" (deliberate) leak saved at least $150 million for the
space program, possibly a lot more.
		6. Ad astra...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Mar-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  9 Mar 1981 2016-PST
From: MERRITT at USC-ISIB
Subject: Re: Space letters
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Responding to my letter sent to several key people in government,	
I have received the following letter from Senator Alan Cranston (D) CA:

---------------------------------

March 4, 1981



Mr. Ian H. Merritt
456 South Bedford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90212


Dear Mr. Merritt,

Thank you for sharing your concerns with me regarding the space
program.

Through our space program, we have gained tremendous amounts of
information about other planets and our universe.  The recent
Voyager mission demonstrates this in a spectacular fashion. Equally
important, we have learned a great deal about our own planet.  Many
of the advances we have made in improving the quality of life here
on earth are the result of this new-found knowledge.  For instance,
both civilian and military communications, including the telephone
and television are dependent on satellites and will be even more
so in the future.  Non-aerospace fields such as agriculture, trans-
portation, and medicine have made significant advances because of
space technology.

Currently, the space program is concentrating on several projects,
like the space telescope, which have applications for Earth.  Another
program, the Space Shuttle, will provide routine access to space by
establishing a basic transportation system.  It will also reduce the
costs of the space program because the shuttle will be reusable.

The Voyager mission illustrates what fantastic accomplishments we
can achieve in the area of space and how much more there is to learn.
I have included for your information a statement that I made on the
floor of the Senate regarding this marvelous feat.  I have been and
will continue to be a strong supporter of our space program.  I
believe this is an area in which the U.S. can and should maintain
its leadership.  Our space explorations have proven to be of great
benefit to us, and they hold out the promise of even greater gains
in the future for all mankind.

I appreciated hearing from you.

			  Sincerely,




			  Alan Cranston

Enclosure


-------------------------------------

	-	C O N G R E S S I O N A L    R E C O R D	-

      PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 96th CONGRESS,  SECOND SESSION

Vol. 126	WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1980		No. 166
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

			      S E N A T E
			  THE VOYAGER MISSION

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, during the week of november 12 we were
privileged to be a part of one of the finest hours of American scientific
and technical achievement.  Our Voyager spacecraft, a jewel of engineering,
produced worldwide headlines as it swept through the moon and ring
system of the giant planet Saturn.  And line the genie of Aladdin,
it opened wonders beyond our wildest imagination. Shimmering globes
of ice, cloud: covered oceans of hydrogen, swirling storms of high
speed winds, and the majestic and mysterious rings, brought us adventure
on a cosmic scale.

These new vistas would have awed even the most intrepid of explorers:
Columbus, Magellan, Byrd, Perry, and the rest. And through the marvel
of American space technology, it was possible to share the Saturn
experience across the Earth. The images returning from Saturn were
beamed all over the world by communication satellites we now take for
granted. People thronged to our National Air and Space Museum to become
more a part of another American "first" in space. The pictures returned
from Saturn have received international news coverage. The success
of the Voyager mission is truely phenomenal and a feat of which we
are all very proud.

I offer my heartiest congratulations to the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) and to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
in California. I am delighted that JPL has played such a major role
in the Voyager mission. JPL is a research and development facility
operated by the California Institute of Technology for NASA. The
laboratory not only designed and constructed the Voyager spacecraft
but managed its actual flight with its tracking and data processing
facilities. JPL's work on the Voyager is hardly over, though: JPL's
scientific team will now analyze the information the information gathered
by Voyager. Results so far indicate that the mission has far exceeded
its promise.

The tremendous achievements of the Voyager mission call to mind our
continuing commitment as a nation to new space exploration. We should
not allow this commitment to lapse. The next exploration we have firmly
planned is for the planet Jupiter through the Project Gallileo, which
is scheduled for the late 1980s. Between completion of the Voyager
mission and Project Gallileo, we should carefully consider other exciting,
valuable steps we may take in the continuing drama of unwrapping the
mysteries of the cosmos.

One such opportunity is space-based observation of Halley's Comet,
which will return in 1986 for its once-every-75-years visit. Halley's
Comet has fascinated mankind throughout history. Josephus, the Jewish
historian recorded the appearance of a comet, resembling a sword,
that he said foretold the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. That
comet thought to be Halley's Comet, which made a close approach to
Earth in the spring of A.D. 66. Fascination with Halley's Comet has
not diminished over the centuries. A number of nations plan missions
to explore the comet in 1986.  The United States should consider
such a mission, perhaps making use of knowledge and equipment from
the Voyager mission.

A second opportunity exists in a potential mission to explore Venus,
a planet so shrouded in clouds that it cannot be explored from orbit
with cameras. It can, however, be "seen" by radar, and we have the
technology to use radar to map the planet in detail as we did on Mars
almost 10 years ago.

Just as we explore new horizons on the outskirts of space, we are
also moving rapidly into an era of using inner space as an extension
of life on Earth. Satellites are an integral part of life as we all
benefit from communications systems made possible by them. The Space
Shuttle, which I have long supported, is being readied for its first
operational mission and holds the promise for America's continuing
leadership in sending satellites to space and in initiating and managing
space-based research and experiments.

Both new exploration of space and increasing use of that part of space
already important to our daily lives are key facets of the national
space program.

I repeat my hearty congratulations to NASA and the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory for their tremendous contribution to America's space effort.
[]
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 1981 20:15:36 EST (Wednesday)
From: Edward D. Hunter <edh at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: The Shuttle
To: space at mc
Cc: edh at BBN-UNIX

Can anyone tell me the current planned launch date for the shuttle?
I heard from a friend that it has been pushed back yet again.
Please reply directly to me since I am not on the space mailing list.
Thanks.
-edh


------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 1981 2152-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a242  1520  09 Mar 81
AM-Space Shuttle,420
Astronauts Predict First Trip Could Be Short
Laserphoro HT1
By HARRY F. ROSENTHAL
Associated Press Writer
    SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - The astronauts who will fly the first
space shuttle said Monday that failure of any major system could lead
to an early end to the maiden flight of the Columbia next month.
    ''The way we designed the mission, now we will probably come home
early,'' astronaut Robert Crippen said at a news conference. ''Just
about anything can break and we'll decide to go ahead and terminate
it.''
    The launch of the reusable spacecraft tentatively is scheduled for
April 7. The first flight is to last 54 1/2 hours with Crippen and
Commander John Young at the controls.
    Young expressed some doubt that the scheduled landing site, the
Mojave Desert lakebed at Edwards Air Force Base in California, will be
dry enough for the Columbia's use. Recent rains have flooded large
areas of the landing site. If the Edwards site is deemed unusable, the
shuttle would land at White Sands, N.M.
    Work has begun at the Cape Canaveral launch site to remove, repair
and replace 17 insulating panels that loosened from the shuttle's huge
external fuel tank recently. The rebonding operation began Sunday and
is expected to take about two weeks.
    After that, a definite launching date will be set. Space officials
now are saying only that they're aiming for the week of April 5.
    ''If we get a couple of significant failures, we will come home on
the first day, probably on the fifth revolution (of Earth),'' Crippen
said. The full mission is 36 orbits long, but Young said just getting
the shuttle into space and back will satisfy most of the flight's
objectives.
    He called Columbia's flight ''a conservative mission.''
    Young said the flight is planned so that the astronauts could come
back to Earth and land at any time.
    In addition to landing sites at Edwards, White Sands and Cape
Canaveral, there are contingency sites at Rota, Spain, Okinawa and
Hickam Field in Hawaii.
    The news conference, held at the Johnson Space Center where the
flight controllers will be during the mission, was the last for the
astronauts before the shuttle's first test. Seven days before the
flight, they will go into a medical quarantine to minimize their
contact with other people.
    Crippen said failure of any of the 20 motors that drive the latches,
which close the shuttle's huge cargo doors, would cause the flight to
be ended early.
    Young said delays still can be expected in the maiden flight, which
already is three years behind schedule.
    
ap-ny-03-09 1827EST
***************



------------------------------

Date:  12 March 1981 01:29 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Clipping Service - Budget cuts
To:  energy at MIT-AI, space at MIT-AI

From the February 21, 1981 issue of Science News

		  Science News of the Week

		 OMB finds "fat" in Research

    Portents of what's in store for federal research under President
Ronald Regan emerged last week in a listing of budget cuts proposed
by the Office of Management and Budget. This unofficial preview of
OMB proposals appeared to be an administration move aimed at
softening the impact of its budget paring--expected to involve
proposed cuts in excess of $45 billion--by spacing out controversial
details over a matter of weeks. And the numbers indicated there had
been notably little attempt to excise only politically benign
programs.

    Repeatedly the Regan administration has stated that it is not out
to cut "meat and marrow" from the budget, just fat. In light of that,
the proposed cuts offered early glimpses at how science policy is
shaping up in the White House. Suggested cuts for three agencies--the
National Science Foundation, NASA, and the Department of
Energy--highlighted attitudes displayed more subtly elsewhere by OMB.

NSF--
    Earlier this year, NSF noted that "many strong and active
university research groups are currently hobbled by obsolete or
worn-out equipment and facilities." Upgrading these facilities, the
agency said, would permit researchers "to be more productive and
efficient and to undertake more advanced work, thus multiplying their
return on investment of federal research project support funds." But
OMB proposed cutting all "new starts" at NSF for fiscal year 1982. So
the $75 million program to upgrade and modernize university research
instruments and equipment found itself heading OMB's hit list.

    Another potential casualty on the list was the 25-meter
millimeter-wave telescope. Designed to study frequencies that fall
between the domains of traditional optical and radio telescopes, the
facility could become "an essential tool for studying interstellar
molecular clouds and star-forming regions at the heart of the
galaxy," said NSF.

    OMB budget cutters found a $5 million program designed to provide
greater research-initiation grants to women scientists and engineers
inessential. A $3 million Minorities in Science program was also
slated for major cuts. (It provides support for minority scientists
and engineers beginning their research careers and offers special
opportunities for improving the research environment at predominantly
minority institutions.) Similarly, funds would be slashed for the
$14.5 million small-business innovation program. Designed to ensure
that research by small and technology-oriented businesses is used
effectively, it provides incentives for transferring research
developed by those firms into practical and innovative commercial
applications.

============================================================

	     Summary of Potential reductions for NSF
		   (figures in $millions)


                          Fiscal 1981                Fiscal 1982
                   Carter   Reagan    %        Carter   Reagan    %
                  Proposal Proposal Change    Proposal Proposal Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Science Education    81       65      -20       112       65      -42

Behavioral, Social &
  Economic Sciences  73       58      -21        84       40      -52

Scientific, Technical,
 & International     56       35      -32        80       38      -53

Cross Directorate    27       17      -37        98        0     -100
(Facility upgrades,
 Women in Science,
 Minorities, etc.)

Astronomy Facilty     0        0        0        10        0     -100

Other programs      848      848        0       974      974        0

Total for NSF      1083     1021       -6      1358     1117      -18

======================================================================

The next section of the article deal with cuts for NASA and DOE.
Combined, these would be too long for the mailer to handle, so they
will follow separately on separate days.


------------------------------

Date:  12 March 1981 01:29 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Question for Gene Salamin
To:  space at MIT-AI

    Sooner or later, no talented person will want to touch space with a
    ten foot pole.  This, I suggest, is the real purpose of the NASA
    budget cut.

I agree that that is the likely effect of the budget treatment that
the space program has been getting in this country. In fact, I
suspect that we have pretty well reached that point now. 

But, you seem to imply that this is a deliberate policy on the part
of the government. Why do you think this is the case? Or am I
misunderstanding you?


------------------------------

Date:  12 March 1981 01:54 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  clipping Service -- Budget Cuts (NASA)
To:  space at MIT-AI, energy at MIT-AI

A continuation of the February 21, 1981 Science News article on
President Reagan's proposed budget cuts. This section deals with the
cuts proposed for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
This is the second of three parts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even without OMB's proposed "retrenchment" of the space agency's
budget, planetary scientists had long been concerned about the
flagging state of the spacecraft programs that provide most of their
data. Only one--the Galileo orbiter and probe of Jupiter--had even
been in the works; President Jimmy Carter's support for the long
sought-after Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar emerged only in his final,
lame-duck budget, and a U.S. mission to comet Halley has seemed mired
in the lobbying stage. "At least," said one researcher after the
presidential election but before OMB's pronouncements, "we have
nowhere to go but up. Or do we?" His question was well-founded.

    The initial OMB plan proposed to reduce the Carter version of
NASA's FY 1982 budget by about 9.4 percent, with more than a third of
the shrinkage coming from space science. This would amount to a 28.8
percent cut on science programs compared with 5.3 percent for the
space shuttle and related activities (which account for nearly half
of NASA's dollars) and 10.2 percent for aeronautics research. The
Galileo Jupiter mission--on which about $275 million had already been
programmed through FY 1981--would be canceled; the Venus radar
project would be deferred, and no Halley's comet mission was
mentioned at all except perhaps by the implication of an OMB
statement that the "proposed reductions...consist primarily of
deferral or deletion of new starts..." Also deferred would be the
earth-orbiting Gamma Ray Observatory, which was the only "new start"
in the science section of Carter's NASA budget for the previous
year. (Primary changes in the space shuttle program would consist of
a six-month delay in production of the fourth shuttle orbiter vehicle
and deletion of funds for purchase of long-leadtime items for a fifth
orbiter.)

    Rarely revealed in advance of an administration's budget, the OBM
proposals--promptly dubbed a "hit list" and referred to by one
scientist as "slamming the door on the whole solar system"--produced
a tempest of reactions, from midnight phone calls among
scientists-turned-activists to a fullscale rumor mill about what
programs would and would not survive. One hgh-level NASA official
commented on the unusual lack of information communicated by
still-higher officials who were dealing directly with OMB as the
Reagan budget was being hammered out. A NASA approach reportedly
being tried prior to the budget's unveiling was to seek control over
the actual cuts once OMB had established an amount. A rumored example
of NASA's exercising of such an option was suggested to be that Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (the agency's main planetary research center,
which would be radically affected by a cutoff of planetary missions)
might be "given $50 million and told to get something to Halley."

    Even with such "freedom," however, the mood of this week's budget
countdown did not bode for smooth sailing at NASA over the next few
months. Said one concerned planetary researcher, "I think it's going
to be a battle that's going to be protracted into the summer and into
the fall."
------------------------


------------------------------

Date:  12 March 1981 01:56 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Clipping Service - Budget Cuts (DOE)
To:  space at MIT-AI, energy at MIT-AI

A continuation of the February 21, 1981 Science News article on
President Reagan's proposed budget cuts. This section deals with the
cuts proposed for the Department of Energy. This is the third and
last of three parts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

    President Ronald Reagan's let-the-marketplace-decide philosophy was
nowhere better evident than in OMB's proposed cuts for the Department
of Energy. Government support of energy technology development should
continue only through the "proof of concept" stage, OMB said, with
funding for further scale-up and development to be paid by industry
as the technologies prove economic.

    For instance, solar research, development, and demonstration cuts
of 22 percent for FY 1981 and 60 percent for FY 1982 "can be
justified and sustained," OMB said, "by adopting a policy that
federal support should be restricted to long-term R&D with the
potential for high payoff." The budget agency also advised that until
the Solar Enegy Research Institute's mission is better defined and an
"appropriate" size staff agreed upon, construction of a permanent
facility at SERI's Golden, Colorado, site should be deferred.

    The federal budget agency also proposed giving the ax to:

 - all fossil-fuel demonstration and development programs,
 - the entire magnetohydrodynamics program,
 - conservation projects "where commercial viability can be tested by
   the private sector alone," including energy from urban wastes,
   advanced automobile engines, industrial processes, and electric
   and hybrid vehicles,
 - hydropower demonstration programs.
 - most geothermal loan guarantees and hydrothermal demonstration
   projects,
 - plans for gasoline rationing (with termination to come as quickly
   as possible by providing only program-closing costs),
 - research on near-term technologies for storing energy, and
 - pilot-demonstration plants for five synthetic-fuels technologies.
   OMB recommends that the newly formed Synthetic Fuels Corp. pick up
   funding for these plants.
   
       OMB's proposals were not expected to prove a precise blueprint
for the president's formal budget proposal. But they did suggest that
the new administration sees plenty of fat in the nation's research
budget and will be making every effort over the coming year to render
it.
-------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 1981 0121-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n069  1527  11 Mar 81
BC-SUN
(Newhouse 014)
By PETER COBUN
Newhouse News Service
    WASHINGTON - After committing the equivalent of an entire year's
budget of the 11-nation European Space Agency to a joint venture with
the United States to send a spacecraft to explore the sun's poles,
European scientists are stunned and angered by the Reagan
administration's plan to pull out of the project.
    The head of the ESA warned Wednesday that U.S. withdrawal ''cannot
fail to have adverse consequences on future undertakings of this
nature.''
    In the last decade, European governments have spent $1.2 billion in
cooperative space projects with the United States.
    ESA Director General Eric Quistgaard told a House space subcommittee
Wednesday that the entire sun polar mission might be scrubbed if the
United States cancels its participation.
    Quistgaard said, ''It cannot be taken for granted that the ESA
science program committee will decide to maintain (the project) alone
if the cancellation of the NASA spacecraft is upheld (by Congress).''
    Rep. Ronnie Flippo, D-Ala., chairman of the space subcommittee,
agreed with Quistgaard that the administation's recommendation that
the U.S. quit the project ''would have a far-reaching, adverse impact
on international cooperation.''
    The International Solar Polar Mission involves two spacecraft - one
developed by ESA and the other by the U.S. National Aeronautics and
Space Administration - both of which would be launched toward the sun
from the U.S. space shuttle.
    Their paths would take them over the poles of the sun, and
telescopes aboard the craft would collect data on the polar regions
to be transmitted back to Earth.
    But the Reagan budget, given to Congress Tuesday, recommends
cancelling the U.S. spacecraft in the joint solar mission.
    Acting NASA Administrator Dr. Alan Lovelace, testifying before the
House space panel Tuesday, had said that although the United States
would withdraw from the project, the administration plan ''supports
our commitment to the European Space Agency by providing for a 1986
launch opportunity for a cooperative mission using the ESA
spacecraft.''
    The ESA chose to embark on the joint sun polar mission rather than
other, strictly-European projects, said Quistgaard, ''because of the
value ESA attaches to trans-Atlantic cooperation.''
    The U.S. portion of the program, he said, ''ran into a critical
funding situation'' from the start, and the 1983 launch date was
delayed two years. That delay, said Quistgaard, already has cost the
Europeans $20 million.
    Then Congress, while reducing the 1981 budget, considered killing
the project. At the last minute, however, the funding was
appropriated. ''On that occasion,'' said Quistgaard, ''the member
states (Europeans), through their embassies in Washington, acted to
stress the importance Europe attached to this cooperative venture.''
    Quistgaard called the Feb. 20 notification that the United States
wanted to pull out of the project ''the latest and most serious
blow.''
    The Europeans already have committed $100 million to the mission - a
sum equivalent to nearly the entire annual ESA budget for space
sciences.
BJ END COBUN
    
nyt-03-11-81 1827est
**********



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Mar-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 MAR 1981 1007-EST
From: HITCHCOCK at CCA (Chip Hitchcock)
Subject: duplicated messages
To:   space at MIT-MC, energy at MIT-MC

   I would like to suggest that people be a bit more discriminating about
what they send to both these lists. SPACE was established specifically to
remove topics that were only marginally germane to ENERGY, and people
who thought they would be interested in both were specifically invited
to ask that their names be on both lists; despite this, it's my guess that
the two have been running at more than 75% duplication of material in
recent months. For people who, like myself, can display msgs at 2400
baud or more, this is at most a trivial annoyance; I'd like to hear what
people with hard-copy terminals think.  More important is the fact that
the increased net traffic caused by this duplication makes us that much
more visible and subject to proxmiring.  It would also be interesting to
see the results of cross-checking by the administrators of the two lists
to quantify the degree of overlap between them---I suspect it's quite high.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 12 March 1981 13:16-EST
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>
Subject:  duplicated messages
To: HITCHCOCK at CCA-TENEX
cc: ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

Yes, the incidence of duplicated messages is very high.
Also, a good deal of UTTERLY peripheral stuff having to do with 
	the various personalities prominent on mailing lists
	is finding its way onto both mailers.
I hereby echo Chip's request that some discrimination be shown.

I also hereby query whether anyone has major objections to my boxing up
	energy mailings in one-a-day or two-a-day multiple vitamin
	packages.  Notice that when one replies (as I have) to a 
	specific person and CCs the lists, that person gets the reply
	immediately.  Barring such objections, I will do so starting
	around Monday next (3/15/81).

Regarding new words, Proxmiring?  (As opposed to any other type of miring.)

Yours,
Oded

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 1981 1329-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Real budget cut figure  
To:   space at MIT-MC  


Does anybody know how big the proposed NASA cut is supposed to be?  Ronnie
said 250 million in his speech and presumably that has gone up somewhat since
then.  But Aviation Week seems to allude to a $604 million cut, which (so it
is claimed) is $117 million more than the *previously proposed* $487 million
cut.  What happened to the original quarter-billion?  I would like to think
that our letters did some good but if AWST is to be believed, the Administration
simply announced a small figure to get us off their backs and then quietly
raised the cut to approximately its original size.



------------------------------

Date:  12 March 1981 16:02 cst
From:  VaughanW at HI-Multics (Bill Vaughan)
Subject:  duplicated messages
Sender:  VaughanW.REFLECS at HI-Multics
To:  energy at MIT-MC, space at MIT-MC
cc:  VaughanW at HI-Multics

I'd like to echo Chip's feelings about duplicated messages and add
a reason of my own.
   Not only do we have nothing but 300 baud at my shop - but
ARPAnet access is impossible to come by unless you are on an
authorized project. Therefore I am doing a few of my friends, who
have no access, a favor in keeping copies of several mailing lists
in my directory.
   When the files get too big I just have to purge them.  When we
see duplicate traffic I have to purge them quicker.  And when the
traffic is a clipping straight off the wire service, complete with
all the garbage the wire service puts on for header and trailer,
the problen's even worse.
    Have a heart! Storage isn't free.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 1981 1357-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Shuttle Launch date
To: space at MIT-MC, edh at BBN-UNIX
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

I am planning to go see the launch on the Rockwell tour (that I sent a 
msg about last month).  As of the end of last week, Rockwell and NASA
are still saying "the week of April 6", probably April 7.  It looks like
this date is firm unless something drastic happens.


				Alan
-------

------------------------------

Date: 13 March 1981 03:35-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: duplicated messages
To: VaughanW at HI-MULTICS
cc: ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

If my view's worth anything (and as I recall they set up ENERGY
and then SPACE beczuse of a couple of my flames) I'd vote to
keep these lists as they are.  The clipping service is VERY
valuable to me; the text of the Sun Times leak was the first I'd
seen of it (although we'd all HEARD ABOUT it) and we had
undergrads running around the news stands trying to get a copy
of the paper; to no avail.
	So duplicates can be a pain, but the clippings are very
valuable indeed.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 1981 0858-PST
From: MERRITT at USC-ISIB
Subject: Re: duplicated messages
To: POURNE at MIT-MC, VaughanW at HI-MULTICS
cc: ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 13-Mar-81 0035-PST

I agree that there is a bit of a pain with duplicated mail, however
I, like most others (I hope), have a mail reader which makes duplications
pretty obvious, and I need not ever read the second copy; just delete it.
I also support the clipping service, and would like more information on
where that is coming from. (I assume that nobody is typing that stuff in)
				<>IHM<>
-------

------------------------------

Date:  13 March 1981 11:54 cst
From:  VaughanW at HI-Multics (Bill Vaughan)
Subject:  Re: duplicated messages
Sender:  VaughanW.REFLECS at HI-Multics
To:  MERRITT at USC-ISIb, POURNE at MIT-MC
cc:  VaughanW at HI-Multics, ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

ok, I stand corrected on the clipping service - but I wasn't objecting
to the info content - just to the unnecessary headers/trailers & like
junk.  Now if it's just being sucked up from machine-readable copy
somewhere and spewed onto the network by an automaton, I can understand
that (though I think automata should usually be smarter than that) but
if it's being transcribed by humans (and some, because of idiosyncratic
spelling errors, clearly are - wire services may have typos but they
almost >never< misspell) then the human transcriber should exercise some
judgment.  

------------------------------

Date: 14 March 1981 01:35-EST
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>
Subject:  your note regarding energy mailer changes
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
cc: ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, VaughanW at HI-MULTICS

Voting to keep the lists as they are is fine, but I wonder if you 
didn't miss the point.  I'm not intending to remove clipping services
or (almost) anything else.  I'm simply bringing the mailer load down, 
introducing some measure of latency on the COPIES THAT THE MAILING
LIST GETS (as opposed to the primary correspondent), and giving myself
a chance to see that the messages that go out don't get us in big 
trouble.

Oded

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 1981 1027-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Omni Article on space available
The NewsService here at SAIL produced a 13 part story on space today.  I have
put the stories in the file OMNI.NS[SPA,OTA] @ SAIL which you can "type"
or "ftp" without an account.  Note that due to some lossage or other the
middle part of the story on the Moon treaty is missing.  I suspect that
SAIL was down when this story was comming in and so was lost.  Let me know
if you have trouble getting the file to your site.

The first couple of paragraphs are reproduced below.  It is interesting to
note that Omni is appearently opting for good space publicity rather than
trying to restrict the distribution of the story.  I guess we can thank
Bova for that.
	-Ted Anderson

n519  2358  13 Mar 81
BC-SPACE-03-14
    EDITORS:
    As part of tonight's Sunday Special package, the Field News Service
is moving five stories - SHUTTLE, INDUST, TICKET, MOON and TEST -
dealing with the U.S. space program, in particular the space shuttle,
from Omni magazine.
    James Michener interviews the shuttle pilots, Omni executive editor
Ben Bova and NASA consultant G. Harry Stine examine the importance of
the shuttle, prospects for travel and industry in space, and the
ramifications of the Moon Treaty, which covers international space
exploration and exploitation.
    The stories are copyrighted by Omni Publications, and must be
properly credited, but are for use by all Field News Service clients
- there is no extra charge for their use.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1981 1902-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Amateur Astronomers
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n022  0854  14 Mar 81
BC-ASTRONOMY-REVIEW
(The Week in Review)
By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - Science has become so expensive and complex that it is
now almost the exclusive domain of professional teams employed by big
institutions subsidized by government grants. The place of the gifted
amateur in the mainstream of science has dwindled to the vanishing
point, while many professional societies warn of a growing alienation
between scientists and the non-professional public.
    It was therefore with a special sense of pride that amateur
astronomers last week observed Friday the 13th. On that date 200
years ago, Sir William Herschel, an organist and composer by
profession but better remembered for his monumental achievements as
an amateur astronomer, discovered the planet Uranus. Somehow, despite
the advent of giant telescopes, satellite observatories and space
probes, Sir William's passionate devotion to his hobby has survived
in today's stargazers. Through them, amateur astronomy continues to
make valuable contributions to human knowledge.
    ''None of us can hope to equal Herschel's achievements,'' remarked
John Marshall, president of New York City's Amateur Astronomers
Association. ''Using his homemade telescopes, he discovered the polar
icecaps of Mars, mapped the heavens and founded the science of
sidereal (stellar) astronomy. There may be no more discoveries in
that class accessible to amateurs, but we serve astronomy by
searching for things the big institutions don't have time for.''
These are chiefly comets, variable star oscillations and occultations.
    The sun's satellites include hundreds of comets whose highly
elliptical orbits swing them far out in space for many years. Such
eccentricities, and the possibility that many comets consist of
primordial materials that existed when the solar system formed, make
them interesting to scientists. Most comets are invisible to the
naked eye. Most are ''found,'' at the rate of about three a year, by
amateurs.
    Occultation of a star or other luminous celestial body occurs when
some dark object - a planet or satellite - intervenes between the
star and the observer, as in a solar eclipse. Timing occultations can
provide valuable information - the diameters and orbital motions of
the objects involved, for example. And occultations have helped
substantiate scientific theories, including Einstein's General Theory
of Relativity, which predicted that observers will see stars near the
sun displaced from their true positions by measurable distances.
During solar eclipses, the brighter stars are visible to the naked
eye and many more can be photographed near the sun, permitting a test
of the theory.
    Variable stars, whose brightness changes periodically, serve a
number of important functions, giving science, for example, a
''standard candle'' for estimating distances to galaxies beyond our
Milky Way. Detailed analyses of the light emitted by variable stars
is usually the work of professionals. But amateurs can often alert
the professional community to deploy the more sophisticated
instruments.
    It's a rewarding pastime for the stargazer, but he or she must be
prepared to spend hundreds, often thousands of dollars on equipment,
learn the rudiments of celestial mechanics and master the technique
of locating celestial objects. The amateur must prepare to forego
prime time television and accept seasonal exposure to bitter cold or
mosquitoes for long hours on clear nights. Among America's most
recognized amateur comet hunters is John E. Bortle of Stormville,
N.Y., a training officer with a local fire department. ''There are
about 100,000 amateur astronomers in the United States,'' he said.
''But in all the world there are probably only about 500 sufficiently
interested to follow serious observing programs. It doesn't take big
telescopes to look for comets - a reflector with a six-inch aperture
is generally adequate - but it takes a lot of time and luck.''
    Amateur comet hunting has long been popular in Japan, said Bortle,
and the Japanese amateur society, Hisho Hiroba, is still the most
prestigious of its kind in the world. ''Minoru Honda alone, who began
observing in the late 1930s, has discovered 12 comets, which is a
world record,'' he said. Luck has not so far favored Bortle himself,
who has sought comets for 10 years. ''And yet I know of a 14-year-old
child who found one on the second night of observing,'' he said.
    When an amateur is sure of a new comet, he claims it in a telegram
to the International Astronomical Union office at the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, Mass., and the process of
professional validation begins. Variable star observations are
reported to the American Association of Variable Star Observers in
Cambridge, which forms a similar link between amateurs and
professionals.
    Some serious amateurs, however, prefer making and experimenting with
their own telescopes to rigorous observing programs. One weekend
every summer, amateur telescope makers throughout the United States
bring their homemade instruments to Stellafane - a conclave of
enthusiasts held on a hilltop near Springfield, Vt. For several days
and nights they share technical secrets, observe galaxies and planets
and communicate their usually solitary passion for astronomy.
Professionals often come, not to condescend but to learn of new
techniques and technology.
    Very few amateurs, however, will turn professional. ''Money's part
of the reason,'' Bortle said. ''With the curtailment of the space
program and other economies, it's become increasingly difficult for a
newly graduated astronomer to find a job.'' On this score also, Sir
William was fortunate. He became a full-time astronomer only after
marrying a rich widow.
    
nyt-03-14-81 1154est
***************



------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1981 2036-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: SBS 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n016  0858  08 Mar 81
BC-SPACEWORK
(Art available on request)
(Financial)
    Ernest Dickinson is a freelance writer based in Chappaqua, N.Y., who
frequently writes on business subjects.
By ERNEST DICKINSON
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    MCLEAN, VA. - Robert C. Hall sits at the wheel of an enterprise that
has been running on little more than faith. In the five years since
it was established here, Satellite Business Systems hasn't recorded a
penny of revenue, to say nothing of profits. Yet, three substantial
investors - the International Business Machines Corp., the Aetna Life
and Casualty Co. and the Comsat General Corp. - have committed $525
just to get the company started.
    Hall, the 48-year-old president and chief executive officer of SBS,
and his three sponsors want to build a communications network in
space, a ''super highway,'' he calls it, to carry electronic mail,
computer data, television images and telephone conversations faster
and with greater capacity than anything ever attempted outside the
Pentagon.
    On March 19, Hall's venture will finally go into operation when it
hooks up its first customer, the Boeing Co. A satellite that SBS
launched last November will link Boeing computers in three different
locations, giving executives and engineers instant access to
information on all three.
    SBS, however, is not a failsafe venture. Other companies with
respected names in electronic communication - like the American
Telephone and Telegraph Co. and the RCA Corp. - are mapping super
highways of their own. Furthermore, legal and other entanglements
have eroded the long head start that might have assured SBS a
sufficient edge to overwhelm its challengers. So the company can't
afford any new setbacks.
    ''We have to grow the company quickly, get it into operation quickly
and get a fast return on investment,'' Hall said. ''Yet, the
difficulty is that the faster we grow, the bigger the up-front
expense. We have to buy all those earth stations, for example. They
can cost up to $400,000 each. We cannot grow so fast that the
negative cash flow swamps us. It is a delicate balance.''
    Such obstacles, and the fact that SBS is not expected to make a
profit until 1983, have not discouraged the three venture partners;
it is the future that concerns them. They expect the overall market
for business communications services and equipment to reach almost
$50 billion by 1984, and $100 billion by1990.
    Aside from transmitting data between computers, SBS will provide the
means for sending written information between offices (so-called
electronic mail) and for linking two or more points with television
and voice signals, so that executives can hold meetings without
having to travel.
    Such services will be accomplished with equipment that will carry
more information faster than similar methods now in operation. The
company's satellites are the first commercial ones to use Ku-band
high frequency transmission, which limits interference from the many
land-based micr5wave systems that now transmit data mostly on C-band.
    The satellite the company launched last November was one of three it
had built by the Hughes Aircraft Co. for $20 million. The second will
go up later this spring and the third in 1983.
    So far, 19 customers have signed for SBS service. After the Boeing
network is established, ISA Communications Inc., an insurance company
service concern, will use an SBS satellite network to distribute
information to its clients. Third in line is IBM, which will link six
earth stations by satellite to establish an all-voice network that
eventually will expand to 30 locations. Other companies that have
contracted for service include the General Motors Corp., the General
Electric Co. and the Dow Chemical Co.
    Seated in his 11th floor office at company headquarters here outside
Washington, D.C., Hall spoke enthusiastically about how industry can
make use of the technology that SBS will offer. But he emphasized
that he was trying to keep his company from moving too fast.
    ''The 19 customers we have now will fill up our plate for this year
and a good part of next,'' he said. ''We are still marketing, though.
First-place momentum is with us and we don't want to back away from
it. But we have to execute well. We don't want to get too many
systems in place until we know we can get all the bugs out. We have
to add new features and functions without jeopardizing reliability.''
    He said that an early concern was that the complementary devices
needed to establish a ground-to-satellite system might be in short
supply. Because SBS neither manufactures nor sells equipment,
corporate officials had feared that SBS would develop into a super
highway for data transmission but that equipment suppliers would fail
to produce an ''automobile'' manufacturing capability.
    ''So we have seeded the development of prototype equipment to show
what can be done,'' Hall said. ''As a result, an increasing number of
firms are gearing up to produce advanced high-speed copiers,
teleconferencing equipment and other matching pieces that our
customers will be looking for.''
    Hall took over the leadership of SBS in July 1979 after serving as
executive vice president of the New York Stock Exchange for two
years. He replaced Philip N. Whittaker, an IBM executive who had
headed SBS on an interim basis.
    Since Hall joined SBS, the number of employees has doubled, to
1,000. IBM and Comsat each have an ownership interest of 41.3
percent, while Aetna owns 17.4 percent. Profits and losses will be
shared on that basis, but the three companies share equally in
managing the company. Although there are no plans to take the company
public, such a move has not been ruled out.
    
nyt-03-08-81 1158est
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 1981 0342-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: New NASA Administrator  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Does anyone know anything about the new NASA administrator?  Are
any real changes in store for NASA's operations?


n528  0104  19 Mar 81
BC-SUMMARY-1stadd-03-19
    
    DOMESTIC
    
    WASHINGTON (Cobun - Newhouse - NASA) - James M. Beggs, a defense
industry executive, has been selected by President Reagan to be
administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
His appointment is expected to be announced this week. (350)
    
    
nyt-03-19-81 0403est
**********



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 1981 2124-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n089  1802  19 Mar 81
AM-SHUTTLE
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - The space shuttle Columbia passed another crucial
milestone in its preflight preparations Thursday, but the successful
countdown rehearsal in Florida was marred two hours later by an
accident that left one technician dead and two others injured, one
critically.
    The technicians were exposed to the pure nitrogen atmosphere of the
shuttle engine section. The nitrogen is used to drive out the oxygen
present in normal air, lessening the chance of a fire or explosion in
the engine area.
    Officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said
the accident at the Kennedy Space Center on Cape Canaveral was not a
result of any flaw in the shuttle and thus was not likely to have any
effect on the timing of Columbia's first orbital test flight.
    The re-usable spacecraft, plagued with technical problems through
much of its decadelong development, is expected to be launched on its
planned 36-orbit mission next month, perhaps in the week of April 5.
The astronauts, John W. Young and Capt. Robert L. Crippen of the
Navy, participated in the countdown rehearsal, donning flight
pressure suits and entering the shuttle cockpit to practice
procedures that led up to a simulated liftoff at 7:25 a.m.
    Both the space agency and the Rockwell International Corporation,
the shuttle's prime contractor, announced that teams of engineers had
already begun investigations of the accident at launching pad 39-A.
They said that the circumstances of the accident were unclear. It was
not yet known, for example, whether someone had erred by failing to
stop the nitrogen purge of the engines, a part of the countdown
cise, or by failing to warn the workers to stay away - or
possibly both.
    Mark Hess, a Kennedy Space Center spokesman, said details of the
accident were ''sketchy,'' adding: ''We just don't know why the men
were in that area while a nitrogen purge was going on.''
    But Richard E. Barton, Rockwell's manager of public relations at
Cape Canaveral, said he was near the launching pad about an hour
after the countdown test had ended and heard a ''return to normal
work'' announcement on the public address system.
    Soon after that, at about 9:30 a.m., according to accounts by
spokesmen for the space agency, five workers employed by Rockwell
ascended the service structure to the level of the three main engines
in the shuttle's aft section. Unaware that it was filled with
nitrogen, they apparently opened an access panel leading to the
shuttle's interior, which is how workers get in to inspect or repair
the engines.
    Before launching, and in this case during the prelaunching
rehearsal, the engine compartment is filled with nitrogen, which
drives out any oxygen or other gases that could cause a fire or
explosion at ignition.
    When the workers stepped into the compartment, they would not have
smelled anything peculiar or have had any other warning that they
were entering a deadly area. All five men were reported to have
passed out almost immediately, and soon afterward were evacuated from
the compartment.
    John Bjornstad, a 50-year-old senior chemical technician, died
aboard a helicopter that was carrying him to a hospital in nearby
Titusville. The medical authorities explained that the nitrogen
itself was not poisonous -it makes up nearly 80 percent of ordinary
air - but such a massive exposure deprives a person of all oxygen. He
dies of what is known as hypoxia, which is lack of oxygen.
    Another technician, Forrest Cole, was flown to Shands Teaching
Hospital at the University of Florida in Gainesville, where he was
reported to have been placed in intensive care. His condition was
listed as critical.
    A third man, William Wolford, was hospitalized in Melbourne for
observation. The nature or extent of his injury was not immediately
known. The two other Rockwell technicians, Nicholas Mullon and J.tL.
Harper, were treated at a hospital and then released.
    A sixth person, a Kennedy Space Center fireman, was also treated and
released from a nearby hospital. He was identified as Don Largent, an
employee of the Wackenhut Corporation, who had gone to the rescue of
the stricken technicians.
     Bjornstad's death was the first launching-pad fatality at Cape
Canaveral since the cockpit fire that killed three astronauts, Virgil
I. Grissom, Roger B. Chaffee and Edward H. White 2d, in a test of the
Apollo spacecraft on Jan. 27, 1967. That fire set back the Apollo
moon project nearly 18 months.
    The space agency said that its investigation team would be headed by
Charles D. Gay, director of expendable rockets at the Kennedy center.
Rockwell's investigation will be directed by Charles Murphy, the
company's director of operations at Cape Canaveral.
    As for the countdown test, George F. Page, the launching director,
said at a news conference before the accident: ''Everything in
general went very well with the countdown demonstration. I think
everybody was pleased with today's run.''
     Page said that it would not be possible to set a definite date for
the Columbia's launching until the tank insulation had been repaired
and retested, probably sometime next week.
    
nyt-03-19-81 2102est
***************



------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 1981 2124-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: More on NASA administrator.  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The following is reproduced without permission from the Wall St Journal of
March 19, 1981, back page.

General Dynamics Aide Seen as NASA Nominee.

WASHINGTON - President Reagan is expected to name James Beggs, an aerospace
industry executiver to be the head of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
  Mr. Beggs, 55 years old, is executive vice president for aerospace and a
director of General Dynamics Corp.  He worked for MASA in 1968 and 1969 as
an official in charge of advanced research and technology.  Announcement of
the appointment is expected soon.

  ... followed by two more paragraphs about head of the Export Import Bank.

	-ota

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 1981 0007-PST
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
Subject: cape kennedy
To: space at MIT-MC

I'm curious as to why the name was changed back to canaveral.
Does anyone know?
-------

------------------------------

Date:  20 March 1981 03:00 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Clipping Service - Astronomers find supernova
To:  Space at MIT-AI

[I hope astronomy things are of interest here. If not, just say so.]

From the February, 1981, issue of Industrial Research & Development

----------------------------------------

Astronomers in Chile have reported the discovery of a
supernova--which took place more than 50 million years ago--in the
nearby galaxy of Fornax A. The rare astronomical event is said to
happen only once every 100 years in a typical star system. The
exploding star was first observed on November 30th by Drs. Marina
Wischnjewsky and Jose Maza of the Univ. of Chile and has since then
grown four times as liminous. Dr. Anthony F.J. Moffat of the Univ. of
Montreal confirmed the event to be a genuine supernova on December
10. A supernova occurs when the interior of the star collapses,
triggering a giant thermonuclear explosion. Supernovae play a key
role in the evolution of the universe as the last step in a cycle
which changes hydrogen and helium into carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and
heavier elements, which can then be incorporated into newly forming
stars and planets. Light from the explosion is as great as the light
emitted by the billions of stars that make up the parent galaxy.


------------------------------

Date:  20 March 1981 03:00 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Just out of curiosity...
To:  space at MIT-AI, energy at MIT-AI

where do Solar Power Satellite things go?


------------------------------

From: LIZARD@MIT-AI
Date: 03/20/81 05:12:47

LIZARD@MIT-AI 03/20/81 05:12:47
To: space at MIT-MC
  I heard rumor to the effect that there was a fatal accident
 during a shuttle launch simulation.  II guess it will be in 
 the newss by FRIDAY. Had some thing to do with nitrogen.
                         -Lizard@AI


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 MAR 1981 0757-EST
From: REM at MIT-MC (Robert Elton Maas)
To: OTA at SU-AI
CC: SPACE at MIT-MC

Dammit, if they can put putrid odor into natural gas distributed in
California, because Methane is odorless and deadly, why can't they do
the same thing when they put pure nitrogen into the engine area of
the shuttle?  (Hey all you guys with NASA connections, how about passing
my idea on to the powers that be so there won't be any more fatalities?)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 1981 0915-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Canaveral and SPS  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Cape Canaveral was restored to its original name because the locals there
got upset that several hundred years of history were being ignored by renaming
the area of land to commemorate a recent historical figure (JFK of course).
They spent several years and a reasonably large amount in legal fees just
to have the geographic feature restored to its original name.  I think the
idea was that, if somebody wanted to honor JFK, they should name something
*new* after him.  And of course they did.  Which leaves us with the Kennedy
Space Center at Cape Canaveral.

Solar Power Satellites are placed in orbit (usually geosynchronous, but not
always) with receptors on the ground, perhaps in the desert.

				-- Tom



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 1981 (Saturday) 1025-EDT
From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus)
Subject: ''Putting that terrible odor into the Nitrogen''
To:   space at MIT-MC

Because, it is a FLAMMABLE material.   At initial purging there would
still  be a mixture of Oxygen (normal Air &v liquid oxygen (LOX)) and
given the environment ... there could be  a pretty nice explosion, killing
lots more people (people crawling in the gantry, making it in the 
cockpit . . .)  I would hate to see the thing topple over.

As to the investigation, my basic (un informed) feeling is that someone
screwed up on the signals.  Perhaps an ALL SAFE klaxon was rung, but
should not have, or the 'Nitro' operator was out smoking a joint, when
the 'notification' came through to shut off the N2.

Who knows.  It was definitly HUMAN error that caused this mishap.  I cannot
believe that Rockwell nor N.A.S.A. would permit such 'procedures' without
precautions.     

Lets wait, and see, and make more constructive comments, like:  Bring
dectectors along with oneself, when going through those areas, and see
if there is a safe amount of AIR to breath or not . . . things like
that.   We cannot undo what was done, but we can PREVENT it from happening
again.

/Hank


------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 1981 1615-EST
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: Inert atmosphere safety
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: king at RUTGERS

	It was suggested that an odorant be added to the inert gas used
to purge the space shuttle's engine compartment (and presumably other
similar places).  This suggestion has a couple of deficiencies:
	1) People vary widely in their sensitivity to odors.  A
concentration of odorant that would be smelled by everyone would be
smelled by some people when there was only a trace of purge gas left
(and the place would be quite safe).  Note that no concentration of
Methane can really be considered safe.
	2) The odorants also tend to stick to surfaces.  The insides
of old gas meters smell no matter how much one tries to purge the
meter with air.  Note that nobody ever goes most places where Methane
is normally used.

	I suggest instead that about 8% Carbon Dioxide be added to the
inert gas.  A person finding himself in a mixture of 92% Nitrogen, 8%
Carbon Dioxide will immediately know that the air is not good.  He
will immediately be short of breath and will probably taste the Carbon
Dioxide.  If half of the purge mixture is swept away, the mixture will
be 86% Nitrogen, 4% Carbon Dioxide, and 10% Oxygen.  The person will
probably notice something wrong with the air.  If he doesn't notice
the problem, this air mixture is more likely to support life than 10%
Oxygen and 90% Nitrogen because the Carbon Dioxide would speed the
victom's breathing.  Remember that a person's respiration is mostly
controlled by Carbon Dioxide concentrations, not Oxygen (otherwise
inert atmospheres would not be insidious killers).
-------

------------------------------

Date: 21 MAR 1981 2119-EST
From: REM at MIT-MC (Robert Elton Maas)
Subject: Introducing smell into pure-nitrogen to save lives
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Here are a couple refinements of my idea.

(1) The odor introduced into pure nitrogen should (for now anyway) be the
same odor that is put into natural gas.  People are used to that smell,
they recognize it as bad, they don't hang around sniffing curiously like
they do with other odors ("Gee, smells like something burning, sort of
like insulation on a wire, or maybe ..."), they either shut off the
leak or they get the hell out of that area.  Later after they get
out of the danger area there's plenty of time to figure out just
what the gas was (natural gas, pure nitrogen, etc.).

(2) The amount of putrid odor introduced into nitrogen should be
less than that introduced into natural gas, so that slight leaks
of nitrogen into open air won't cause concern but as the concentration
of nitrogen gets towards 50% anyone breathing it will flee the odor, getting
out into better air.  Just a slight amount of natural gas being breathed
could mean that a few feet away there's enough to explode. Nitrogen
isn't explosive and until it displaces a considerable amount of
oxygen (maybe 50%?) it's not really dangerous to breathe.

(3) That odor put into natural gas has been in use for many years so is
probably safe.  Rather than try to find a new odor, just use an old
proven one. (Rebuttal to (1) and (3) acceptable.  There might be good
reasons not to use the same odor for both types of gas.)

------------------------------

Date:  22 March 1981 05:42 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Clipping Service -- Venus Exploration
To:  space at MIT-AI

From the February, 1981, issue of Industrial Research & Development

Pioneer data continue to provide insights into atmosphere of Venus

----------------------------------------

    Two years and 800 orbits after it started to circle Venus, the
Pioneer Venus orbiter continues to provide astronomers with new
insights into the nature of our closest planetary neighbor. Surveying
the most recent results from the intrepid unmanned spacecraft,
scientists have gained more precise information about the planet's
atmospheric circulation and have learned more details about the working
of the greenhouse effect, which keeps the Venusian atmosphere in a
perpetually ultra-tropical condition.

    By monitoring the movements of dark markings in the yellowish Venus
clouds, scientists have calculated the speed of the winds that ring the
planet. The breezes blow from east to west--the same direction as that
of Venus's rotation--at the astonishing speed of 225 MPH (360 kph) at
the equator taking just four days to circle the planet. Since Venus
itself takes 243 days to rotate once on its axis, its equatorial winds
blow 60 times as fast as the planet's speed. Translated into Earthly
terms, that is equivalent to breezes flying around our stratosphere in
just thirty minutes, or three times as fast as the most rapid
earth-orbiting satellites.

    Venus's atmospheric circulation also differs markedly from Earth's.
"One of the major surprises of the mission was that we found the bulk of
the atmosphere stable," reported Alvin Seiff of NASA's Ames Research
Center. "The atmosphere does not move; it does not mix." Indeed, the
atmosphere beneath the clouds of Venus resembles nothing so much as the
Los Angeles basin during a smog alert, when the air is almost
completely still.

    Temperature of the planet's lower atmosphere stays remarkably
steady. Temperatures at night fall scarcely at all, being within 1 or 2
C of daytime temperatures. Even the temperatures at high latitudes are
within five degrees of those at the equator. The only real sign of
movement in the lower atmosphere is a wave-like sloshing motion.

    Up in the Venusian clouds, the picture changes entirely. "The
clouds are where the action is," declared Seiff. In this region, the
orbiter's measurements show, temperatures vary bu up to 20C and
pressure variations of 20 millibars are common. The pressure
variations, similar in magnitude to those in Earth's atmosphere,
actually drive the Venusian atmospheric circulation.

    Solar heat is captured by the uppermost clouds, which rapidly speed
around the planet and also drift from the equator to the two poles,
before being recycled back to equatorial regions at lower levels.

    The clouds themselves are divided into three distinct layers. The
lowest and thickest lies between 30 and 31 mi (48 and 50 KM) above the
firey Venusian surface. The next extends from 31 to 35 mi in altitude.
And the uppermost reaches upward from 35 to 43 mi (56 to 69 km).

    In concert, the three cloud layers produce the greenhouse effect,
whereby the Venusian atmosphere absorbs a maximum of solar heat and
radiates away a minimum. According to James Pollack of the Ames
Research Center, the latest Pioneer findings indicate that carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere accounts for 70% of the effect, water vapor
for 15%, and sulfur dioxide and particulate matter for the remaining
15%.


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Mar-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 MAR 1981 0951-EST
From: JNC at MIT-MC (J. Noel Chiappa)
Subject: Additives aren't necessarily inflammable
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
CC: JNC at MIT-MC

	The additives are flammable organics, true, but the thing is
that most people can small mercapatans (and other simililar compounds)
in concentrations of small numbers of parts per million (no kidding -
look it up in Guiness under smelliest substance). Our noses aren't
what they were, but they ain't awful! That concentration is hardly
likely to be flammable.
	As to false alarms, and what happens if you have a stuffy nose:
nothing is ever perfect. This just seemed like a good scheme to make
things a little safer. I'm sure NASA would rather be safe than sorry.
	However, I have often found that there are some sharp people
there, and if I came up with an idea they had usually done so already
and discarded it for a good reason I knew nothing of. Anybody know
(or can ask) if they've tried this one on for size?
			Noel

------------------------------

From: MINSKY@MIT-AI
Date: 03/22/81 10:33:01

MINSKY@MIT-AI 03/22/81 10:33:01
To: SPACE at MIT-AI
The gas odorification doesn't make a flammable mixture, because
the concentration of the smell agents -- mercaptans, etc.,
are incredibly small.  The objections about its persistence may
be sound.  I'm curious to know if carbon dioxide would really
warn one in time, since unconsciousness comes within a minute
in an oxygen-free atmosphere -- much faster, it is my impression
(from breathing helium once by mistake) than if one holds one's
breath.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 1981 0904-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Space Articles from SF-LOVERS
To:   space at MIT-MC  

[This is a reissue of the files I mentioned earlier.  They have been
distributed to various sites for SF-Lovers use.  If you didn't take
a look before it should be even easier to now. -ota]

Date: 03/22/81 00:00:00
From: The Moderator <JPM@MIT-AI>
Subject: A selection of articles from OMNI for FTPing


As part of tonight's Sunday Special package, SF LOVERS is moving five
stories dealing with the U.S. space program, in particular the space
shuttle, from Omni magazine.

James Michener interviews the shuttle pilots, Omni executive editor
Ben Bova and NASA consultant G. Harry Stine examine the importance of
the shuttle, prospects for travel and industry in space, and the
ramifications of the Moon Treaty, which covers international space
exploration and exploitation.  Brief biographies of Michener, Bova
and Stine are also provided.

The stories are copyrighted by Omni Publications, and must be properly
credited, but are for use by all SF-LOVERS recipients.


Everyone interested in reading this material should obtain the file
from the site which is most convenient for them.  If you cannot do so,
please send mail to SF-LOVERS-REQUEST and we will be happy to make
sure that you get a copy.

Please obtain your copies in the near future however, since the files
will be deleted in one week.  A copy of the material will also be
available upon request from the SF LOVERS archives.  Thanks go to
Richard Brodie, Roger Duffey, Richard Lamson, Doug Philips, and Don
Woods for providing space for the materials on their systems.

   Site          Filename
  
MIT-AI       DUFFEY;SFLVRS  NASANS 
CMUA         TEMP:NASA.NWS[A210DP0Z]
PARC-MAXC    [Maxc2]<Brodie>SFLOVERS-NASA.TXT
SU-AI        NASA[T,DON]
MIT-Multics     >udd>PDO>Lamson>sf-lovers>nasa-news-stories.text

[Note, you can TYPE or FTP the file from SAIL without an account.]



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Mar-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  23 March 1981 13:35 est
From:  Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  odoriferous nitrogen
To:  space at MIT-MC

A little research with my local Gas company engineers produced
expressions of near horror.  Neither tertiary butyl mercaptan (natural
gas odor) nor ethyl mercaptan (propane odor) is suitable for this,
according to them.  First, mercaptans are flammable, and the whole point
of a purge is to get rid of as much of that sort of stuff as you can.
Second, they tend to cling for weeks after even a brief exposure in any
concentration.  (An unfortunate second-order effect of this is that if a
technician does step into an unsafe area by mistake, the smell will
remain on HIM,  making other unsafe areas indetectable to HIM for
weeks.)  Third, they are hard to control.  In his lab, for example, they
keep mercaptans in triply-enclosed bottles with seals; and still, on
days of low barometric pressure, it's "run into the lab and open the
windows".  Last, mercaptans are highly corrosive to things like copper
and aluminum; in fact, most anything but stainless steel.  So it looks
as if although "smelling up" the nitrogen may be a winning idea,
mercaptans aren't the way to go.

The Gas Co. engineer suggested oxygen scanners (Scott-Davis makes some)
or various other instruments available from mine supply houses.  Of
course, this means the workers have to carry instruments around on them,
and it isn't nearly as "automatic".

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 1981 2202-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Space Industrialization 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n055  1322  20 Mar 81
BC-SHUTTLEENT ADV22
(FINANCIAL)
(FOR RELEASE SUN. MAR. 22)
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - The first commercial apparatus to be flown on the
shuttle, a system for experiments in materials processing, is
expected to be carried into orbit next year, possibly as early as the
third test flight of the Columbia. Built by the McDonnell Douglas
Corp., through a joint-endeavor arrangement with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the apparatus performs a
process, known as continuous-flow electrophoresis, for separating
biological materials.
    On earth, molecules of various materials can be separated in the
presence of an electrical field, but gravity tends to tangle the
molecules and make electrophoretic separation difficult and sometimes
impossible. In space, under near-zero gravity, the process becomes
easier.
    In cooperation with the Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., a subsidiary of
Johnson & Johnson, McDonnell Douglas expects to produce ultrapure
serums, vaccines and other pharaceutical products aboard the shace
shuttle. The plan is to test the electrophoresis system, a 450-pound
device, on at least six shuttle flights in the next few years and, if
successful, build a 10,000-pound system to be hauled into orbit in
the shuttle cargo bay and then deployed for long-term operations in
the micro-gravity environment. The first experimental units will be
stowed in the crew quarters.
    The potential of electrophoretic processing in space was tested
during the Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975. In an experiment designed by
Abbott Laboratories, the rare and costly enzyme urokinase was
separated from human kidney cell cultures at six times the efficiency
achieved so far on earth. Urokinase, which dissolves blood clots, is
so difficult to produce with conventional processes that a dose costs
up to $1,500.
    According to a marketing analysis by Robert L. Hammel and Donald M.
Waltz of TRW Inc., separation of the enzyme in space could cut the
cost of a dose to $100 and thus stimulate its use in both research
and treatment. In the United States alone, urokinase has the
potential for preventing 50,000 blood-clot deaths a year.
    
nyt-03-20-81 1622est
***************



------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 1981 2217-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Hold on Shuttle    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a212  1100  23 Mar 81
AM-Space Shuttle,410
Tuesday Shuttle Test ''On Hold'' Pending Review Board Report
Eds: Top expected after NASA announces late Monday whether test will
proceed.
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - A special investigative board ordered
changes in safety procedures Monday and postponed for 24 hours the
test loading of supercold liquid fuels into the space shuttle
Columbia's huge external tank.
    If investigators make further safety changes, the shuttle's maiden
launch, now scheduled no earlier than April 8, could be delayed
further, officials said.
    ''Right now it appears to be very shaky for April 8,'' said a source
who asked not to be identified. ''It looks like we're moving toward
the end of the week, like the 9th or the 10th.''
    The loading test, which will check an insulation patch-up job on the
aluminum skin of the 154-foot-tall tank, was shifted from Tuesday to
early Wednesday, said spokesman Kris Kristofferson of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    The delay will give the special panel time to print and distribute
written safety procedures, which it revised as a result of a launch
pad accident that killed one worker and critically injured another
last Thursday, he said.
    The NASA board was reviewing all testing and countdown procedures to
guard against a repeat of last week's fatal mishap.
    Launch pad technicians Monday were completing repairs on the large
chunks of insulation torn loose from the tank in an earlier test.
    Wednesday's ''low-pressure loading'' of liquid oxygen and nitrogen
propellants will put greater stress on the insulation than a normally
pressurized loading. The procedure was to be repeated Friday using
normal launch pressure.
    That second test had been scheduled for Thursday.
    Launch Director George F. Page called the fuel-loading tests ''a big
hurdle'' to be overcome before the shuttle takes its maiden 54-hour
flight.
    The 122-foot-long orbiter Columbia rides piggyback on the huge tank
until it is just short of orbital velocity, at which point the tank
is jettisoned. Much of the tank burns up in the atmosphere, and the
remaining pieces fall into the sea.
    Officials hope to set a more specific launch date if the tank comes
through the fuel-loading tests in good shape. But further trouble
could push the launch back several weeks, officials said.
    In last week's fatal launch pad accident, technician John Bjornstad
collapsed and died from lack of oxygen as he entered a compartment
behind the orbiter's main engines that had not been purged of
nitrogen.
    Forrest Cole, the injured technician, remained in serious condition
at Shands Teaching Hospital in Gainesville, Fla.
    



------------------------------

Date: 24 March 1981 02:15-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: ''Putting that terrible odor into the Nitrogen''
To: DREIFU at WHARTON-10
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Maybe it would be better to carry a canary?

------------------------------

Date: 24 March 1981 02:20-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Inert atmosphere safety
To: KING at RUTGERS
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Since half the atmosphere is below you at 18,000 feet, 10%
oxygen at sea level is about the same partial pressure as that
altitude: you can live in it but you won't be very active
without a lot of adjustment.

	Holding your breath is obviously a better strategy than
breathing when in inert atmosphere; but if you've ver been in an
altitude chamber, you'll know that you do NOT notice anoxia
coming on unless you've had a lot of training at recognizing the
symptoms, and not always even then.  In the old days at least we
used to train pilots by making them take off their masks at
25,000 feet and try to write their names until they passed out.
They were sure they were doiing all right, then when they woke
up at seal level and looked at what they'd written they'd realize...

------------------------------

Date: 24 March 1981 02:23-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Clipping Service -- Venus Exploration
To: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
cc: space at MIT-AI

It's said that once each hundred years the gods roll back the
smog over LA to see if it's still there.  Then they roll it back
again.  With Venus do they wait for a thousand?


------------------------------

Date:  24 March 1981 03:04 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Clipping Service - Entries in the Space Race
To:  space at MIT-AI


From the February, 1981, issue of Industrial Research & Development

Sweden plans first satellite venture

........................................

    Sweden will build her first space satellite, called Viking.  It
will cost a total of $25 million, and will be used for research into
Earth's magnetosphere.

    Viking will have a total weight of 550-kg (1,210 lb) with a
height of 0.5 m (1.5 ft) and a width of 1.9 m (6 ft). The unusual
format was chosen so the satellite can be launched on board the
European rocket Ariane in May 1984 together with the much larger
satellite Spot.

    The Viking project--directed by the Swedish Space Corp.--forms
part of a strategy designed to give Sweden an profitable national
space industry capable of supplying Sweden's own requirements in the
space technology field and of exporting certain space industry
products. The Ministry of Industry states that Viking will cost half
as much as other comparable satellites from other European countries. 

    Viking is to be used to investigate various phenomena in Earth's
magnetosphere, with particular reference to the aurora borealis, and
will be the first satellite used to carry out extensive systematic
measurements of that part of the magnetosphere where ionized
particles are turned into energy by heat and acceleration.

    Viking's altitude will vary between 800 and 15,000 km (500 to
9,320 mi) and will pass over both poles six times a day. 

........................................ End of quote

I find it interesting that Sweden thinks that it can build a PROFIT
MAKING industry out of space, while the country that had the
undisputed leadership can't.


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 1981 0720-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Popular Press article on the Shuttle   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a703  1803  21 Mar 81
BC-APN--Space Shuttle, adv 05-5 takes,520-2260
$adv 05
AGENCIES AND RADIO OUT
Space Future Is Now
For release Sun., April 5
From AP Newsfeatures
APN PRINT SUBSCRIBERS HAVE BEEN MAILED FOUR ILLUSTRATIONS
    EDITOR'S NOTE - The age of space exploration seems to be over, but
that's not an end, just a beginning. The United States is now ready to
make use of what it's learned from space flights in the last 20 years
and make space work for people. The vehicle of this newest frontier
is the space shuttle, ready and roaring to go, finally.
By HOWARD BENEDICT
Associated Press Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Twenty years after man first broke his
earthly bonds and soared away from his planet, America is entering a
new era in space - riding on the stubby wings of the world's first
true rocket ship.
    The space shuttle is here, a modern prairie schooner waiting to open
up that frontier. A couple of decades from now, those science fiction
dreamers who gave us Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers will be able to
say, ''We told you so.''
    The prospects and promises are grand. Space colonies, orbiting
factories, flights to the planets. And on the dark side: dart-like
warships flashing deadly laser beams across the heavens.
    Impossible?
    There were skeptics 20 years ago who said humans could not make it
into space. And if they did, they could not survive.
    Those ideas were laid to rest April 12, 1961, when a Russian, Yuri
Gagarin, rocketed into orbit and returned to Earth after one
108-minute circuit of the globe. Within a month, on May 5, an
American, Alan B. Shepard Jr., vaulted more than 100 miles up on a
15-minute spin.
    The technology spawned by those flights got Americans to the moon
and Soviets in space for six months at a time.
    Twenty of Shepard's one-ton Mercury capsules could fit inside the
cargo bay of the shuttle.
    ''Talk about comparing apples and oranges,'' says Shepard, now a
millionaire Houston businessman. ''There are tremendous advances, in
equipment, technology and techniques.
    ''In Mercury we followed a ballistic course to an ocean landing and
never used the capsule again,'' he says. ''The shuttle pilots can fly
this ship to a landing on a runway and take it up again a few weeks
later.''
    He predicts the shuttle will become the DC-3 of the space age,
referring to the aircraft that initiated the age of air passenger
travel in the 1930s.
    With the shuttle, the United States is ready to switch from the
exploration to the use of space, making space work for people on
Earth. And restoring U.S. eminence in a domain it once ruled supeme.
    It's been nearly six years since American astronauts last went into
space. In that period, they've watched on the sidelines while 41
Russian cosmonauts have flown into orbit and gathered all the space
endurance records. More importantly, they have acquired a great deal
of experience in how to operate in space for military purposes.
    If the United States is to meet the Soviet challenge out there and
also exploit this unique environment to its maximum, space officials
say two things are necessary. The shuttle must work, and the nation
much set a national purpose to make full use of this space-faring
cargo ship.
    We'll learn this month just how well the craft functions. The first
shuttle, the Columbia, is poised like a giant white batmobile on a
Cape Canaveral launch pad, awaiting the signal for its maiden journey.
    If the mission succeeds, there is speculation that President Reagan
may set a national goal to develop a manned space station to serve
later in this decade as an orbiting command post for civilian and
military space projects. The Russians have said they will have such an
orbiting outpost by 1985.
    Columbia will be commanded on its first trip by 50-year-old
astronaut John Young. He's been there before, logging 533 hours on
four previous journeys, including a walk on the moon. With him will be
Navy Capt. Robert Crippen, 43, making his first space trip after
training 15 years for that day.
    ''We're no longer flying a spacecraft; we're flying a spaceship,''
Young says. ''It's an incredible machine which will revolutionize the
way America operates in space.''
    Reuseability and maneuverability put it light years ahead of earlier
space vehicles, he says. Columbia and the three or four other
shuttles that follow each will be capable of 100 or more roundtrips
into space.
    No longer will expensive booster rockets be dumped into the ocean
and spacecraft relegated to museums after just one launching.
    Young and Crippen are to exercise Columbia for 54 hours - maybe a
day longer if all goes well - before landing on a large dry lake bed
at Edwards Air Force Base in California's Mojave Desert. Once the
landing technique is mastered, after three or four flights, Columbia
will land on a 15,000-foot concrete strip at Cape Canaveral.
    ''We're going to take a very conservative approach on this first
flight,'' says Christopher C. Kraft Jr., director of the Johnson Space
Center in Houston. ''A successful launch and a successful re-entry
and landing represent 99.9 percent of the objectives on this mission.
We will not hesitate to bring the vehicle down if we are the least
bit doubtful about any kind of spaceship problem.''
    ''We want to make sure everything is just right, because this is the
first time men will be aboard a new space vehicle that's being
launched for the first time,'' Young says.
    All earlier vehicles in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo projects were
tested first in unmanned flights. But the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration says Columbia is too complex a vehicle to fly
without pilots.
    For that reason, the flight may be the riskiest ever undertaken. But
NASA officials say they are confident about all aspects of the test.
    It's a marvel that Columbia is ready to fly at all, considering its
past financial and technical problems.
    Until the Defense Department put its full weight behind the project
as essential to national defense 17 months ago, the shuttle received
only lukewarm backing from three straight presidential
administrations.
    President Carter finally loosened the purse strings after Air Force
officials detailed the military potential of the vehicle.
    NASA had considerable difficulty achieving the technology needed to
develop a reuseable spaceship. The chief problems were with the three
main engines, the most sophisticated rocket powerplant ever built,
and with 30,922 heat-resistant tiles attached to the aluminum shell to
keep the shuttle from burning up on re-entry.
    The troubles have delayed Columbia's first flight more than two
years and pushed the shuttle development pricetag to $8.9 billion, 23
percent above the cost projected a decade ago.
    A catastrophic failure would grievously damage the U.S. space
effort, delaying ambitious plans for perhaps years. The second
shuttle, the Challenger, won't be ready for at least 18 months, and it
might have to be redesigned if a major defect is found in Columbia.
    Success will reopen up the nation's future in space.
    On the assumption of success, more than 70 future flights have been
booked, about one-third for military missions - launching
surveillance, communications and navigation satellites and testing
anti-satellite and missile killer laser beams.
    American and foreign industries are lining up to buy space in the
shuttle's 60-foot-long cargo bay, to carry up communications
satellites and to conduct exotic experiments in the weightlessness of
space in hopes of finding ways to produce new drugs, crystals and
metal alloys. An alliance of 10 European nations is building a
reuseable four-person space laboratory to be ferried up on a 1983
shuttle trip.
    For $35 million, a company can rent the cargo bay, which will hold
65,000 pounds of payload, for an orbital journey up to 30 days.
Several firms can share the cost.
    Many firms, however, are reluctant to commit large sums of money to
a shuttle research flight because the promise of return is long-term.
Some feel the government should pay for such research - just as it
did when NASA developed the early communications satellites.
    Still, the space agency and Air Force expect about 400 flights in
the next decade and they are training a new breed of astronauts for
the shuttle era. As many as seven persons can fly on each mission.
    Eighty-two astronauts are now training at the Johnson Space Center,
and more will be recruited each year. About half are pilots, and the
rest are classed as mission specialists - to handle payloads and to
conduct experiments in medicine, astronomy, physics and metallurgy.
    Among them are eight women and the first husband-wife astronaut
pair, William and Anna Fisher. Above Anna Fisher's desk is this sign:
''The best man for the job may be a woman.''
    There are those who feel the shuttle fleet should be used for more
than just hoisting satellites and serving as a small lab, that it
should also serve as a freighter to haul up the building blocks for
large orbiting structures.
    This, they contend, would help keep the United States No. 1 in
space.
    Among them is Sen. Harrison Schmitt, R-N.M., a former astronaut who
explored the moon on the final Apollo shot in 1972. He is chairman of
the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space and thus in
a key position to influence space policy.
    Schmitt has urged Reagan to establish a definite goal of a manned
space station, with military operations a major consideration. He says
the appropriate time for such a commitment would be soon after a
successful first flight of the Columbia.
    ''We haven't had a national purpose in space since President Kennedy
articulated the essence of the Apollo moon program in 1961,'' Schmitt
says. ''The technology and momentum of that effort carried us into
the 1970s, and then sort of petered out when President Nixon did not
articulate a larger purpose for the developing space shuttle.''
    The senator says his conversations with President Reaggan ''have
been quite upbeat and encouraging, especially his interest in the
defense capabilities of space. The president is tremendously concerned
about the proliferation of missiles,'' Schmitt says. ''He is
interested in the potential to reverse that - to develop a system to
stop missiles soon after they are launched, rather than your ability
to withstand the final attack.
    ''It's going to take time to marry the shuttle technology with the
technology of new weapons, particularly, more than likely, laser
weapons,'' he says.
    At a date not yet certain, the Air Force intends to use the shuttle
to test laser beams as a possible interceptor of missiles.
    ''We haven't fully realized the military potential in space,''
Schmitt says. ''The Russians have a much clearer vision of the future
in this regard than we do.
    ''Our problem is not technology; it is the will,'' he adds. ''We
don't have a sustained will to use this vastly superior technology
base that we have. The Soviets are doing everything they're doing with
a vastly inferior technology.
    ''But they're doing it, and they're figuring out how to use that
technology, improving it by increments, until...they'll catch up with
us,'' he says. ''They're ahead of us in basic manned experience in
space. What they're doing with it I don't know. But it doesn't make me
sleep any more comfortably at night.''
    Chris Kraft's name is is synonymous with the U.S. manned space
effort. He was flight director on Shepard's pioneer leap and he has
been a key figure on all 31 U.S. manned missions. As director of the
Johnson Space Center, his shuttle interests lie in commerce, industry
and science.
    ''We need a national purpose in space if we are to realize the
potential of this vehicle,'' he says. ''There needs to be a consensus
within NASA, within the aerospace industry and within the country on
what that plan is.
    ''In my opinion it should involve three things: permanency of man in
space, building the tools that are associated with large structures
in space and the development of satellites to produce the large
amounts of solar power needed to support these structures.
    ''All of these would lead to space operations centers and manned
activity at geosynchronous altitudes,'' he says.
    A station placed at geosynchronous altitude, 22,300 miles above the
equator, travels at a speed that matches the rotation of the Earth
and thus hovers over one spot on the globe at all times. From that
outpost, a satellite can ''see'' one third of the Earth, and three of
them equally-spaced can cover our entire planet.
    ''The shuttle is going to give us a feeling that we can come and go
as we please without a great deal of fanfare and preparation,'' he
says. ''When that happens we can begin to take advantage of what can
be done in space. It's not only a place to observe the Earth and the
stars and the solar system, it's also a place where men and women can
work, using the weightlessness of space to make materials and
medicines impossible to form down here.
    ''Who would have thought 10 years ago that Europe and Japan would be
making the inroads they have into the American auto industry?'' he
asks. ''That's how fast things move. If you don't take advantage of
the position you have at the time, you may very well lose the edge.''
    Kraft was one of the few who 20 years ago said man could make it to
the moon. What does he foresee 20 years from now - in the year 2001?
    ''I would see a spaceport like the Houston Ship Channel where
advanced shuttle ships are unloading devices and materials and
scientists, engineers and construction workers for space assignments
and returning to Earth with rotating personnel, products manufactured
in orbit and worn out satellites for repair,'' he says.
    He does not believe humans will establish orbiting space colonies
just for the sake of living out there, but he does feel there will be
colonies for those who work in the factories and observation posts.
    ''I can conceive,'' says space veteran Kraft, ''that humans might
some day go to some other planet in some other solar system to start a
whole new frontier.''
    END ADV
    
ap-ny-03-21 2156EST
***************



------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 1981 0719-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Space Industrialization 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n040  1108  20 Mar 81
BC-SHUTTLE 2takes ADV22
(FOR RELEASE SUN. MAR. 22)
(ART EN ROUTE TO PICTURE CLIENTS)
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - With the first space shuttle due to go into orbit next
month, the business executives upon whom its ultimate success depends
will regard it with wonder. They'll wonder whether, as the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration has promised, there will really
be anything in it for them.
    The revolutionary flying machine already offers some promise to a
few industries: Aerospace companies, led by the Rockwell
International Corp., the prime shuttle contractor, hope to supply
shuttle hardware for the rest of the century. And the communications
and data-transmission industry is depending on the reusable shuttles
to launch its satellites more cheaply than the conventional rockets
now being used.
    But in the view of NASA, the shuttle system holds far greater
potential. It sees a day when dozens of shuttles will be commuting to
and from earth carrying enormous payloads. Crews aboard the shuttles
could build and maintain gigantic orbiting communications satellites,
solar-power stations that would transmit electricity to earth, and
highly automated factories where industry could use the unique
environment of space to make things that cannot be made as well, if
at all, on earth.
    The virtual absence of gravitational force in orbit - scientists
speak of the microgravity environment, not zero-gravity - provides
several advantages in processing metals, fluids, crystals or living
cells. In microgravity conditions, particles do not fall up or down
and there are no distorting convection currents.
    Based on theory and several experiments on earlier space flights,
the crystals that are the raw material of the electronics industry
could be made purer and more reliable in space. New alloys and new
types of glass should be also possible, and, for the pharmaceutical
industry, biological substances could be separated more cleanly and
efficiently. By the mid-1980s, according to NASA, some special
products sold on earth, probably pharmecuticals and crystals for
microelectronics, will bear the made-in-space label.
    For the moment, however, business is cautious. No business, other
than the communictions industry, is willing as yet to commit big
money on ventures in space. The payback - if there is any - could be
dozens of years away, and that is unappealing to companies whose
horizons are often limited to two, three, or five years.
    ''It takes money and time to figure out what can be produced in
space, what it will cost and if there is really a use for it,'' said
James Rose, manager of space processing for the McDonnell Douglas
Corp.
    Indeed, a recent study by the Boeing Co. concluded that increased
commercialization of space will not come easily. ''It will be
expensive to develop all the interlocking technologies and
organizations that will be needed for full space commercialization,''
Gilbert W. Keyes and John T. Bosma, two Boeing marketing specialists,
wrote in a report. ''The major obstacles to maturation of space
industries are financial, organizational and political rather than
technological.''
    Decisions made in the next five years, Keyes and Bosman continued,
will determine ''to a large extent'' the economic prospects for space
during the rest of the century. They said that companies want to be
assured that American space programs will have ''a more secure
financial future and a more supportive political climate'' before
they risk money developing equipment and experimental manufacturing
processes for use in space.
    In fact, the future of the shuttle - whose first launching has been
delayed for months by a series of technical problems - does appear
clouded. Although the Reagan administration exempted the shuttle
program from its proposed budget cuts - which will pare $600 million
from NASA's overall budget - it has not as yet expressed a commitment
to post-shuttle projects. Congressional and NASA leaders suspect that
the administration is waiting to see how well the space shuttle
Columbia performs in its upcoming 54-hour orbital flight.
    Still, proponents within the program remain enthusiastic. Joseph P.
Loftus Jr., chief of technical planning at NASA's Johnson Space
Center, believes that the advent of the shuttles could do for the
economic development of space what the transcontinental railroad did
for the American West. ''Whether transportation makes commerce or
commerce makes transportation is a chicken-and-egg problem of
economics,'' he said, indicating that he tended to side with the
former proposition. He equated the first shuttle with the first train
west out of St. Louis.
    At launching, the shuttle consists of three main components: a
122-foot-long delta-wing orbiter, built by Rockwell; a huge external
fuel tank, built by the Martin Marietta Corp; and two solid-fuel
rockets, built by the Thiokol Corp. and the United Space Boosters
subsidiary of the United Technologies Corp. The fuel tank and the two
rockets are attached only temporarily to the orbiter to provide
additional boost and fuel during the first minutes of ascent. They
will be jettisoned after the shuttle begins to pull free of the
earth's gravity, and the orbiter will contine under its own power.
    Only the orbiter will be fully reusable, with astronauts piloting it
back from space to a runway landing. After refurbishment and
refueling, the ship is to be refitted with external fuel tank and
rocket boosters and launched again and again, perhaps up to 100
times, with intervals of less than a month between flights. This
reusability is the basis for various projections showing that the
shuttles should eventually reduce the cost of space travel.
    Much of the orbiter's fuselage consists of a cargo bay, 60 feet long
and 15 feet wide, capable of carrying up to 65,000 pounds of payload
- either a single satellite or laboratory or several instruments -
and delivering it into its orbiting parking place. The cost to a
company for the rental olion, but it
is expected that full rental by one company would be rare, and that
several would rent space on a single flight.
    The orbiter's range is between altitudes of 115 and 500 miles; any
satellite destined for higher altitudes, such as the 22,300-mile-high
orbit favored for communications relay stations, must be boosted
there by its own attached rocket, to be fired after the satellite is
tossed overboard from the shuttle, either by simple springs or a huge
mechanical arm operated by astronauts. In addition, astronauts are
expected to maneuver the shuttles to repair and service satellites
already in orbit and even bring back others for renovation.
    The first two shuttles are being developed and tested at a cost
expected to run almost $10 billion. NASA has contracted with Rockwell
to build two additional orbiters at a cost of at least $500 million
each and hopes to get Congressional approval for a fifth. NASA
reports that it already has commitments for customers to fill the
first 50 to 60 shuttle flights, and if current projections for
traffic later in the decade are approximately accurate, NASA said
that it will need a sixth and possibly seventh orbiter in the fleet.
The agency has sought help from Eastern Air Lines Inc. and the
Federal Express Corp. on how to match flight capacity with user
demand.
    NASA officials believe that some day, perhaps by the early 21st
century, a shuttle service run by private companies may be feasible.
A few years ago, Boeing investigated the possibility of buying one or
more shuttles and establishing a kind of private-enterprise airline
for space, but eventually backed off. ''Right now,'' Loftus of NASA
said, ''we're still where we were when the Army Signal Corps flew the
mail because no private venture could do it.''
    Nearly one-third of the booked shuttle flights are reserved for the
defense department, which will convert from using expendable rockets
to the shuttle for launching its communications, navigation and
surveillance satellites. Because of their national security role,
these satellites will have priority over others.
    But the heaviest traffic into space will be in commercial
communications satellites, as it has been for several years. A recent
NASA report estimated that American and foreign communications
payloads will account for 38 percent of NASA's launching demand in
the 1980s. These will represent replacements for aging satellites and
new, larger satellites to satisfy the expanding demand. Altogether,
NASA estimates, new communications satellite procurement could
surpass $1.5 billion in the 1980s, with most of the business likely
to go to experienced satellite builders like the Hughes Aircraft Co.,
the RCA Corp. and TRW Inc.
    Japanese and Western European industries are moving in as strong
competitors, and the European Space Agency's Ariane rocket, if it
surmounts current development problems, is expected to compete with
the shuttle in transporting communications satellites to orbit.
Ariane is a conventional three-stage expendable rocket system.
    Besides the growth in telephone and television circuits, there is
expected to be increasing demand by industry for secure voice, video,
high-speed data and facsimile services, a field opened last December
with the launching of SBS-1 by Satellite Business Systems, a joint
venture of the International Business Machines Corp., the Comsat
General Corp. and the Aetna Life and Casualty Co.
    Indeed, the geosynchronous, or ''stationary,'' orbit used by most
communications satellites is becoming so crowded, according to a
study for NASA by the Western Union Corporation, that by 1990
satellites will have to operate at different and higher frequencies
to keep from interfering with each other. But the shuttle's cargo
capacity should make it possible to deploy larger satellites with
multibeam antennas, on-board switching systems and high-power
transmitters that would provide more efficient use of available
orbital slots. Hughes and TRW are completing a one-year study of
communications satellite designs for the shuttle generation.
    Although telecommunications will likely dominate the space economy
for many years to come, NASA and private industry are exploring some
more futuristic endeavors that could turn a profit. They are
particularly interested in learning how to build large structures in
orbit to serve as the power stations and factories of the space
economy. Boeing, the General Dynamics Corp., the Grumman Corp. and
Rockwell have conducted a number of such studies for NASA.
    As a first step, NASA is reviewing concepts for power modules that
would be deposited in orbit by the shuttles and left there as kind of
electrical outlets. A single module might have 100-foot-long panels
of solar cells for converting sunlight to electricity. A shuttle
could plug in to such a module and draw power for six weeks of
operations. Laboratories, satellites or small prototype
materials-processing factories would also get their energy from the
modules.
    Other concepts include assembling larger structures by clustering
together prefabricated modules brought up by the shuttles in separate
flights. These could be bases for scientists engaged in research,
operators of low-gravity manufacturing plants and solar-power
collectors and construction crews.
    Grumman, in particular, is experimenting with automated
structural-beam builders that could be deployed out from such a
station; they would extrude graphite-resin composite beams extending
for hundreds or thousands of feet and forming the support structure
for solar-power arrays, telecommunications platforms or ''industrial
parks,'' where clusters of manufacturing operations would be joined
in a single array for easier maintenance by shuttle crews.
Eventually, NASA says, space ''tugs'' will be needed to haul people
and goods from the shuttle-serviced stations in low earth orbit and
the higher orbits.
    So far, however, there are no commitments for giant factories or
solar-power stations in space. But some companies are beginning to
heed NASA's sales pitch on the potential for materials-processing
aboard the shuttle and in future orbiting laboratories. Armed with a
study prepared by TRW Inc., NASA is playing up the advantages of
space processing as the possible source of materials not obtainable
at competitive costs on earth.
    In a micro-gravity environment, the study noted, it should be
possible to process some materials without containers, which are a
source of impurities. Glass manufacturers, if they go to space
processing, might be able to make ultrapure products for applications
in lasers and fiber optics. The TRW study estimated that such
ultrapure material used in fiber optics communications cables could
reduce the transmission losses to the point where a savings in other
components of the system, such as repeaters, would equate to $59,000
for every kilogram of ultrapure glass used.
    In addition, the study said, the production of ultrapure crystals
i1s  r hy-. Primitive
crystal-growth experiments were conducted on Skylab in the early
1970s and, NASA says, are likely to be among the first processing
tests aboard the shuttle. If it was demonstrated that ribbons of
semiconductor-grade silicon cyrstals could be produced in space, the
TRW analysis said, this could represent a potential revenue of $440
million annually by 1990, even if the space-produced silicon captured
a mere 10 percent of the market.
    When NASA brought such possibilities to the attention of industry
six years ago, the reaction was almost universally skeptical. Richard
L. Brown, manager of commercial applications at NASA's Marshall Space
Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., said that he was surprised to find
''the pioneering spirit in today's economic climate so blunted.''
    While NASA spent up to $20 million annually to test orbital
processing, Brown and other officials hit the road to try to convince
companies to sign ''joint endeavor'' agreements with the space
agency. Under such agreements, the company develops, builds and tests
processing equipment of its choice and NASA promises free shuttle
rides for the equipment during the research and development phase.
The company retains all rights to the equipment and products. If the
process proves commercially feasible, the shuttle would have a new
paying customer and the nation would have a new business.
    Only one such agreement has been signed so far, by McDonnell
Douglas, but two others are being negotiated.
    
nyt-03-20-81 1617est
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Mar-81  0408	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 1981 1359-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Shuttle lifespan
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]25-Mar-81 13:59:34.WMARTIN>

Hi!  Looking at all the recent shuttle publicity brings this
question to mind:

The shuttle's reusability is a prime feature.  What portion or
subsystem of the shuttle is the limiting factor on its lifespan?
What parts does NASA expect will wear out or break first, and
what will determine that a certain shuttle craft is too far gone
and will be retired?  (Aside from the obvious, like a crash.)

I would assume that tiles will be constantly replaced as they
show some signs of age/fatigue/erosion, and that this could keep
up forever.  Engines would normally be replaced after so many
hours of use, just as on normal aircraft.  Avionics (is there a
different term for spacecraft?  astronics?)  and the other
internal systems can be revamped and replaced bit by bit in the
life of this ship.  The airframe itself (another inappropriate
term) would be the main factor, and parts of it could be replaced
as metal fatigue or failures were detected.  Is there some member
of the structure which is the key, or keel, and, if it goes bad,
that's it?  Or is the shuttle expected to last forever (barring
accidents) until it becomes uneconomic, and later, more efficient
versions replace it?

I have visions of an old shuttle being used as a diner somewhere
on Luna, or some guy buying one surplus to use for an L5 ferry...

(I suppose I am counting my chickens' grandchildren before the
eggs are hatched, but speculation is fun.)

Regards, Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 25 MAR 1981 2131-EST
From: DWO at MIT-MC (Douglas W. Oard)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR MAILING LIST.  THANKS, DOUG.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  26 March 1981 03:00 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Clipping Service - Ultra low frequency radio astronomy
To:  space at MIT-AI

From the February, 1981, issue of Industrial Research & Development

Peninsula antenna may aid scientists in communications with deep space.
........................................

    A technique for turning sea water around a peninsula into a giant
antenna may someday provide a way to communicate with deeply
submerged submarines or bring new understanding to signals from
space. The method has been tested in recent years on a small scale in
the New England area by a team from Stanford Univ. that now hopes to
scale it up to a much larger test using a peninsula the size of Cape
Cod.

    The studies involve ultra low frequency (ULF) radio waves on the
order of from 5 to 6 Hz on down to as little as 0.01 Hz. Generating
or detecting these, notes Anthony Fraser-Smith, senior research
associate at Stanford Electronics Laboratory, Stanford, CA, requires
a huge antenna.

    Building a huge conventional antenna for the new tests would have
been much too involved and costly. Thus, Fraser-Smith and his
coworkers came up with the idea of the peninsula method. Since sea
water conducts electricity quite well, it can become an antenna. The
idea is to stick a wire across the neck of a peninsula and drive
current into the water. "It tends to take the shirtest path it can,
which happens to be along the shore of the peninsula. That sort of
defines you loop. The peninsula drives the current apart and forms it
into a roughly circular path."

    In the mid '70s, Fraser-Smith and Prof. Oswald G. Villard Jr.
determined a small peninsula on the north shore of Chappaquiddick
Island off Cape Cod, MA, called North Neck, would serve for small
scale tests. Initially, they stretched 300 m of wire across the neck
and attached two copper sheets 0.45 m sq to the ends under the water.
A receiver was placed in the middle.

    Results were promising, so a somewhat more powerful test was set
up a year later. In this case, wire made of aluminum was stretched
across North Neck attached to two large galvanized pipe sections
about 180 m apart. Four automobile starter relays connected to two
12V batteries were used to produce alternating current.

    In these studies, the team found that an airplane flying between
160 to 320 m above the island could detect signals from the antenna.
Calculations indicated the peninsula method gave performance 49 times
better than if a conventional antenna had been built around the shore
of North Neck.

    The U.S. Navy, which along with the National Science Foundation
helped fund the work, was interested in it for the same reason it
supported the controversial Midwest ULF program. ULF waves provide a
potential way for direct communication with submarines.

    (The Russians seem to be pursuing the approach with the same idea
in mind. Recently studies were reported from Rybachy peninsula in the
Artic, a relatively large antenna system whose magnetic field was
measured as far as 750 km away.)

    "Actually, we are interested in these tests more for basic
science findings than possible practical uses. We hope to gain an
understanding of certain sounds that seem to come from the radiation
belts. The ones we're interested in aren't what are called whistlers,
but little warbling currents you only can hear if you record the
signals on tape and speed them up to an audible rate.

    "There is a well developed theory for these pulsations, but it
has never been tested," Fraser-Smith said. One method for doing it
would be to build a power enough peninsula antenna to transmit ULF
signals to the radiation belts on nights when the warbling noises are
absent to see "if particles interact with our signals the way they're
supposed to.

    Both for that and to provide data for Navy needs, a larger
peninsula than Chappiquiddick is needed. Cape Cod might do nicely
except that it is too densely populated. The method isn't seen as
posing any major health hazards, but it could cause some electric
shocks, particularly at the point the field is injected into the
water.

    "So we're considering remote peninsulas with no other people
around." Frasier-Smith said. "We have looked at places in Canada,
Alaska, Antartica, and Greenland," he added.

    "We don't have equipment for the full scale experiment yet. The
Soviet Union has been doing research with portable MHD
(magnetohydrodynamic) generators which they can set up and turn out a
huge current fairly easily. We don't have that kind of equipment, but
on the other hand, their generator doesn't have the variable
frequency characteristics we want. We plan to carry out our tests
with well controlled frequencies and feel that will be a much better
experiment," he said.

........................................ End of quoted text.

I am curious: Could you construct such an antenna by stringing a wire
across the Isthmus of Panama? And, if so, what frequency range would
you be working in? Apparantly something the size of Cape Cod works in
the range of 0.01 to 6 Hz. South America is nearly three orders of
magnitude larger, so the frequencies should be that much lower. I
wonder what's on the 10 microHertz band tonight??


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 MAR 1981 0017-EST
From: ES at MIT-MC (Gene Salamin)
Subject: Continent sized antenna
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     A loop antenna is best for wavelengths about twice its size.
If you used the whole earth as a loop, then the optimum frequency
would be around 10 Hz.  On the other hand, at these long wavelengths,
a terrestrial receiver is in the near zone, so the transmission is 
really just transformer type coupling.

------------------------------

Date:  28 March 1981 03:00 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Clipping Service - Black Holes
To:  space at MIT-AI

From the February, 1981, issue of Industrial Research & Development

Theorists question the nature and existence of black holes
........................................

    Just when astronomers have accepted the idea of black holes--the
incredibly dense stellar cinders that perform the task of cosmic
garbage collection--theorists are throwning doubts on the nature and
even the existence of the bizarre objects.

    The fundamental idea of a black hole, first published in 1939 and
resurrected about a decade ago, views a black hole as the dead
remnant of a star more than three times as massive as our sun, that
has collapsed under the force of its huge gravitational field to a
size no more than that of, say, Manhattan Island.

    Gravitational pull of this object would be so intense, the
theorists said, that not even light could escape from it. It would be
inherently invisible, swallowing up every form of matter and
radiation that approached it and giving off no trace of its
existence. The only possible way of identifying a black hole, canny
astronomers decided, was to seek characteristic radiation that
stellar matter gives off as it is swept towards a black hole. X-ray
astronomers have so far spotted a handful of objects that might just
fill the description of a black hole, although none of the
identifications are by any means certain.

    Then came Stephen Hawking, the British theorist who, by combining
the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, concluded that black
holes can actually "leak". So intense is the field of energy just
beyond a black hole, Hawking reasoned, that pairs of particles--one
of matter, the other of anti-matter--could form spontaneously in the
region.

    In some circumstances, one of the particles will fall into the
black hole while the other escapes into the universe
beyond--representing a loss of matter by the black hole. According to
Hawking's calculations, matter would drip off the black hole at an
increasing rate until a final explosion would rip the dead star
apart.

    Recently, Frank Tipler of the Univ. of Texas at Austin has taken
a fresh look at Hawking's calculations. Writing in Physical Review
Letters, Tipler reports not only that the leaking process indeed
occurs, but also that it happens so effectively that black holes
might not survive for more than a few seconds. Tipler's
interpretation of the leaking process is that stable black holes do
not exist.

    The Texas theoretician readily acknowledges that his analysis may
be wrong, particularly as it involves the murky boundary between
quantum theory and relativity. Possibly, he suggests, black holes may
not leak after all, owing to quantum effects more complex than
currently realized. Or maybe some vital assumption about the energy
field surrounding black holes may be in error.

    Certainly the report has given black hole buffs plenty to think
about. Black holes, if they do exist, may be even more unusual than
the theoreticians first thought.


------------------------------

Date:  28 March 1981 03:00 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Cape Canaveral
To:  space at MIT-MC

The name was changed back becuase of the continued and extensive
protests of the residents. They were not opposed to honoring Kennedy,
but were very proud of the history of their city and its name. As I
recall, Canaveral is the oldest continuously inhabited city in
America, and the Canaveral Lighthouse has an equally venerable
history.

The name change, to my mind, made things the way they should have
been in the first place. The FACILITY was named after Kennedy, and is
now the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral.

------------------------------

Date:  28 March 1981 03:00 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Shuttle accident
To:  space at MIT-AI

Does anyone know what the time of useful consciousness is for someone
stepping into pure nitrogen? I seem to recall that for stepping into
a vacuum it's about 30 seconds. Seems like it should be at least a
minute for nitrogen.

Of course, the problem is that anoxia is like drunkenness. You will
never believe you have it unless you know what to look for. You will
think everything is just fine. Most pilots have learned or been
trained to recognize it, but I doubt that the ground workers have.


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 1981 1420-CST
From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: False alarm...!
To: space at MIT-AI

The following article appeared in The Daily Texan, (our campus 
newspaper here at the University of Texas at Austin) on Thursday,
March 26:

POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCHER DISCOVERS HIS BLACK HOLE THEORY INCORRECT

A UT postdoctoral research associate in physics says he recently
discovered his theory -- that black holes do not exist -- is 
incorrect.

Frank Tipler first presented his theory in Physical Review Letters
last September.  His hypothesis, that potential black holes would
evaporate before they could actually form, was actually a revision
of a theory proposed in 1974 by Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University.
Hawking argued black holes, like any other heated object, would
eventually evaporate.

But while Hawking estimated the time required for complete evaporation
is 10**71 years, Tipler proposed the time required is actually closer
to one second.

Tipler says now an algebraic error in his calculations invalidates
his theory.  "I dropped a term in my calculations ... I think now
Hawking is correct.  My theory is virtually useless," he said.

Tipler said he discovered his error March 13, the same day The Daily
Texan printed a story about the theory.
-------


------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 1981 1606-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: NewsService goodies
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Two files are available on SAIL for ftp.  The first (SPACE.NS[SPA,OTA]) has
some interesting general background information.  The second one (SHUTLE.NS)
contains lots of info on the shuttle, including many details on how the actual
flight will go.  Parts of it are useful reference materials for watching the
flight from your TV.  They are roughly 350 lines each.

Let me know if you need help getting these files to your site.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Mar-81  0448	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 1981 1300-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Rumormongering
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I recently came across several reasonably substantiated rumors that may be
of interest to the SPACE readership:

	1) (Very well substantiated)   Stan Kent, president of the Viking
Fund, will be having dinner at the White House on April 13.  He was invited
to discuss public support for the planetary exploration program specifically,
and public support of the space program in general.

	2) (Moderately substantiated)  The Soviet Union is expected to make
a big move in space, sometime in April.  One theory is that two Salyut space
stations will be coupled together to form the Yuri Gagarin Permanent Manned
Space Facility.

	3) (Also moderately substantiated)  The White House has received more
mail on space in the past few months than any other single issue, except
veterans affairs.

					-- Tom



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Mar-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 1981 1155-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Shuttle names
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: Space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]30-Mar-81 11:55:52.WMARTIN>

I'm confused. (This is not unusual.) The news article on
the shuttle (in the FTP file) names the four shuttles as:
Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, and Atlantis.

I thought I recalled that the Star Trek enthusiasts staged
a campaign and had one of the shuttles named "Enterprise". Is
this a totally false recollection? Or is there a fifth shuttle,
so named? Is the Columbia (the one being launched) the same craft
that did the test flights from atop the 747? Or was that the one
named "Enterprise", and was it just an aerodynamic test bed, not
to be actually launched into space?

Please enlighten my murky memory. Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 1981 1231-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Shuttle and letters
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

Looks like the launch date is either April 9 or 10.  The date will be
officially selected Tue morning (mar 31).  Remember, for up to date
info, dial 922-INFO (area code 213).

I had heard also that the second greatest amount of mail to Reagan is
on space.  Let's keep up the good work.


				Alan
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 MAR 1981 1008-EST
From: HITCHCOCK at CCA (Chip Hitchcock)
Subject: shuttle names
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC
cc:   WMARTIN at OFFICE-3

  Various other stories (including a surprisingly good one in the
NEW YORKER) have said that "Enterprise", the first shuttle to be
rolled out, was intended only for aerodynamic testing (i.e., being
dropped from a 747).  "Columbia" is the second shuttle to be
mostly completed and will be the first actually to get above the
atmosphere.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 31 March 1981 16:03-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle names
To: WMartin at OFFICE-3
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

Enterprise flew flight tests, but won't go into space.
Columbia will.  (It will also come back in one piece I hope!)

Enterprise was really a misnomer since the real Enterprise was
a starship and space station, not a ground-to-space shuttle.
Galileo would have been a more appropriate name for a shuttle
named after after Startrek, but that name was already assigned
to the Space-to-Jupiter-atmosphere one-time probe, alas.

------------------------------

Date:  31 March 1981 16:25 cst
From:  VaughanW at HI-Multics (Bill Vaughan)
Subject:  the shuttle ENTERPRISE
Sender:  VaughanW.REFLECS at HI-Multics
To:  space at MIT-MC

ENTERPRISE was the aerodynamic test bed. It will never fly in
space. I don't know what happened to it. I think the Trekkies got
the shaft.

------------------------------

Date: 31 MAR 1981 2142-EST
From: DWO at MIT-MC (Douglas W. Oard)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

AS I RECALL, NASA DECIDED IT WOULD BE TOO COSTLY TO REFIT THE AERODYNAMIC
TEST BED ENTERPRISE AS A FUNCTIONAL SHUTTLE, BELIEVING NEW CONSTRUCTION TO
BE CHEAPER.  THUS THE DEMISE OF THE ENTERPRISE.  PERHAPS THE TREKKIES WERE
A LITTLE TO QUICK.  IT WILL LOOK GOOD IN A MUSEAM THOUGH!  I MUST SAY, THE
TROUBLE NASA HAS HAD WITH THE TILES SEEMS TO INDICATE THE CORRECTNESS OF
THEIR DECISION.  HOPEFULLY THEY WONT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES THE FIFTH
TIME!

------------------------------

From: FONER@MIT-AI
Date: 03/31/81 23:42:16
Subject: Shuttle names

FONER@MIT-AI 03/31/81 23:42:16 Re: Shuttle names
To: Space at MIT-MC
The shuttle called "Enterprise" was renamed from "Constitution" for
historical reasons:  the Constitution NCC class starship (i.e.,
identical to the Enterprise) was destroyed in battle.  It was felt
that this was perhaps not a good omen.

The Enterprise space shuttle was used as an aerodynamic testbed, and
was flown several times piggybacked on a large jet.  However, it was
never intended to make it into space.  Instead, the Columbia was
chosen to be the first shuttle into space.  The Enterprise will remain
earthbound forever, probably as a conversation piece but nothing else.

To make it into space, the Enterprise would require extremely
extensive retrofitting and redesign, since various things have been
changed since it has flown.  For instance, the method of making the
tiles adhere has been changed.  So has the control electronics, I
think.  In general, the Enterprise will not fly.

So...  that's why the first shuttle into space will be the Columbia.
And I'm just wondering how many people will misspell that name.  I may
have myself.  Oh, well...

						<LNF>


------------------------------

Date:  1 April 1981 01:08 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Shuttle names
To:  space at MIT-AI

The first shuttle built was indeed named the Enterprise. This is the one
that was drop tested from the 747. It was never intended to be the first
shuttle flown, as it was in fact just a test vehicle. The one now on the
launch pad is the Columbia. The original intention was that the
Enterprise was to be taken back and rebuilt to become the fifth orbiter.
I now hear that, because of budget problems, it is being cannibalized
for parts.


------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 1981 2255-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: shuttle names
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF


Yes indeed, the first shuttle test vehicle built was named Enterprise after
the fans wrote in.  However, that vehicle will never fly into space, it was
the one that was drop tested off of the 747 a few years back.  It was 
planned that it would be refurbished and flown into space, but when funding
was cut to 4 orbiters, that was the one to go.


				Alan
-------

------------------------------

Date: 1 April 1981 02:52-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle names
To: WMartin at OFFICE-3
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

As revenge, Carter saw to it that the Enterprise is the shuttle
that will never go to space. It's used as a mockup and wil not
be fitted with space travel gear.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  3 APR 1981 0100-EST
From: RWG at MIT-MC (Bill Gosper)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Can anyone give the launch window times on the 10th?
How about gross takeoff weight and engine thrusts?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 04 Apr 1981 0816-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Military uses of Space  
To:   arms-d at MIT-MC, space at MIT-MC    

By RICHARD D. LYONS
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    WASHINGTON - The blastoff of the space shuttle next month will be a
benchmark in the history of warfare, in the view of Pentagon officers
and military strategists.
    Leaving aside the considerable scientific and commercial aspects of
shuttle flights, which are the ostensible reasons for the investment
of some $8 billion in the reusable space vehicle, military planners
say the launching will mark the start of manned military operations
at altitudes that will start with the shuttle at 200 miles and go to
virtually any height imaginable.
    Almost from the first planning and investment in the shuttle program
a decade ago it was widely recognized on Capitol Hill that the major
long-range benefits would be from military applications.
    This view has not gone unnoticed in Moscow, where Soviet leaders
have vigorously protested the continuing development of the American
space plane as a provocation, and have unsuccessfully sought to
negotiate its halt.
    The Soviet Union was well aware that early in the process of
designing the shuttle, its cargo bay was enlarged at the urging of
the Air Force to accommodate military payloads. At a length of 122
feet and with a wing span of 78 feet, the shuttle is about the size
of a DC-9 jetliner. With two pilots and as many as three technicians
it could stay in space for a week or more.
    Interviews with people familiar with military space issues have also
shown that there is a growing debate over whether space, an area
where weapons of mass destruction are outlawed by United Nations
treaty, should be opened to lesser weaponry.
    Some Americans fear an arms race in space, while others see the
military use of the shuttle as a natural consequence of the
superiority of this nation's space technology, although such
superiority may prove temporary.
    ''The military use of the shuttle is going to be dominant, while
civilian uses will be minor,'' said Dr. James Van Allen of the
University of Iowa, an elder statesman of the American space
exploration effort. ''NASA is going to be trampled to death by the
Defense Department on shuttle use, so why not be honest about it and
call it a military program?''
    Another scientist who has expressed concern over the military
implications of the shuttle is Dr. Eric Chaisson, an associate
professor on the astrophysics faculty at Harvard University.
    ''Many of my colleagues and I believe that the mission of the
shuttle is to launch military satellites,'' he said.
    Chaisson added that he had been discreetly told by his superiors to
keep his opinions to himself ''because there is a lot of kowtowing to
the fact that scientists with such views are on thin ice'' with those
federal agencies that distribute money for research.
    Yet to the aerospace industry and other groups seeking a rapid
strengthening of the American military, the shuttle is the
realization of a dream of manned military vehicles extending back to
the Advanced Reconnaissance Satellite program of the 1950s.
    Those favoring the operation of overtly military satellites with
astronauts aboard suffered sharp setbacks when the Air Force X-20
Dyna-Soar program was canceled in 1963, and its follow-up program,
the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, was killed six years later after the
investment of $1.6 billion. The programs were eliminated partly for
economic reasons and partly because they had been overtaken by the
Gemini and Skylab programs.
    Therefore to such military thinkers as Lt. Gen. Daniel O. Graham,
the retired director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who is now
co-chairman of the Alliance for Peace Through Strength, a civilian
lobby group, the shuttle offers the opportunity to open vast areas
for military exploitation.
    ''The shuttle gives us a strategic edge over the Soviet Union and
their masses of missiles and submarines,'' Graham said. ''While the
Russians would say 'ain't it awful,' I say 'hurray' and let's take
advantage of our superiority.''
    Groups such as the Federation of American Scientists, which have
long opposed the development of the shuttle, originally for economic
reasons and later for military reasons, as well as those groups akin
to Graham's, acknowledge that a kind of cold war in space is emerging.
    There have been several examples of this development:
    -This month the Air Force announced that it would build in Colorado
a $450 million Consolidated Space Operations Center from which all
future military shuttle and satellite flights would be directed.
    -The Defense Department is seeking more than $500 million in the
proposed budget for the fiscal year 1982 for its own shuttle
research, development, testing and engineering.
    -A military duplicate of the shuttle base at the Kennedy Space
Center is being constructed at Vandenberg Air Force Base in
California. It is expected to be operational in 1984.
    -The Air Force is quietly asking Congress for about $150 million for
the continuation of twin programs to develop antisatellite weapons.
    



------------------------------

Date: 04 Apr 1981 0827-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Search for Planets 
To:   space at MIT-MC, sf-lovers at MIT-AI 

    By Albert Sehlstedt Jr.
    (c) 1981 The Baltimore Sun (Field News Service)
     GREENBELT, Md. - There are about 10 other suns near enough to the
Earth's corner of the Milky Way that may have planets visible through
the space telescope, according to an astronomer associated with the
project. The fundamental question, of course, is: Are there people on
those planets?
     The space telescope, to be launched into a 310-mile-high orbit of
the Earth in 1985 by the manned space shuttle, ought to be able to
detect such planets if any of them are relatively large, said James
A. Westphal, professor of planetary science at the California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena.
     Finding other planets in the universe would be a key step in
determining the answer to the age-old question of whether there is
other life - similar to life on Earth - somewhere in the enormous
expanse of the universe.
     Professor Westphal, the leader of a team of scientists making a
planetary camera for the space telescope, was at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Space Flight Center
here last week for a scientific meeting evaluating the current status
of the flying scope.
    Goddard will send operational radio commands to the telescope in
response to requests of astronomers viewing the skies from the Space
Telescope Science Institute, to be built on the Homewood campus of
the Johns Hopkins Unversity.
    Westphal said in an interview that there are two ways the telescope
would be able to detect planets in other solar systems.
    The first way, which he called a ''marginal'' possibility, would be
to see them directly through the instrument in the same manner that a
backyard astronomer looks at Mars or Saturn.
    The other way would be to use the telescope to detect a perturbation
- or wobble - in one of the suns under observation. This knowledge
would indicate that the particular sun in the eye of the scope was
feeling the gravitational pull of a nearby object, invisible though
it might be from the environs of Earth.
    A planet would have to be quite large - the size of a Jupiter,
perhaps - for it to be visible against the bright light emanating
from the star it was orbiting, Professor Westphal explained.
    To put it another way, an astronomer somewhere else in this galazy
might be able to spot Jupiter or Saturn in this solar system, but
would not find Earth, which is not only much smaller than those two
planets but closer to the sun's bright light.
    The Cal Tech astronomer said he was personally interested in
focusing the telescope on a neighboring galaxy, designated M-87,
which has a ''very, very large black hole - one of those things where
everything is falling into it and disappearing.''
     Looking through the space telescope, Professor Westphal said, he
would hope to be able to say of M-87: ''Yes, it really does have that
black hole in the middle.''
     Black holes are former stars which, after collapsing into an
extremely dense state, have an extraordinarily powerful gravitational
field. The field is so strong that nothing - not even visible light
or radio waves - can escape from it.
    Another object of interest for the space telescope, Professor
Westphal said, would be Pluto, one of the outer planets of this solar
system that can only be seen now as a point of light in the sky.
    The space telescope will be able to see the shape of Pluto that
astronomers believe has a moon orbiting it.
    Other fascinating objects of discovery may be things in the universe
that scientists would not even guess exist, Westphal said. Other
astronomers share that opinion.
    ''There's a long history of that in astronomy,'' the Cal Tech
scientist continued, citing the example of Galileo looking through
his rudimentary scope in the Seventeenth Century and finding craters
on the moon.
    ''This is almost as big a step as Galileo building his telescope,''
Professor Westphal said of the space telescope project.
    The space telescope, which will have a 95-inch mirror, is by no
means the largest such instrument in the world (the one on Palomar
Mountain in Southern California has a 200-inch mirror, for example)
but it will operate with the incalculable advantage of being above
the veil of the Earth's atmosphere.
    (There are several advantages to building telescopes with mirrors -
called reflecting telescopes - one of them being that the instruments
can be made much larger).
    With the reflecting space telescope, astronomers expect to behold
much of the universe with a clarity never before possible.
    The telescope will have a 15-year life and crews aboard the space
shuttle can fly up to repair the instrument if necessary.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  5 Apr 1981 1853-PST
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
Subject: Shuttle: what \could/ go wrong
To: space at MIT-MC

BC-Shuttle-Risks, Adv 00,880
$Adv 00
For Release - Before - NASA Shuttle Mission
The Maiden Voyage VII: Men, Not Chimps, Test the Shuttle
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - The space shuttle Columbia is the first
spacecraft assigned to carry astronauts without first being tested on
unmanned flights. Its two pilots say they are unconcerned.
    Astronauts John Young and Bob Crippen concede the maiden journey
carries the potential for a disaster that could cost them their lives,
but note Columbia is laced with safety features for emergencies from
launch to landing.
    ''We obviously think the vehicle is safe; otherwise we wouldn't be
flying it,'' said Young, the 50-year-old mission commander who has
made four earlier space trips, two each in the Gemini and Apollo
programs.
    The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo craft each were flown on at least two
unmanned flights, and two chimpanzees, Ham and Enos, tried out
Mercury before Alan Shepard and John Glenn went aloft.
    But the shuttle is too complex a vehicle to send up without pilots.
    ''There's probably a way to do it, but it would probably cost as
much as $500 million and delay the program another year,'' Young told
the Associated Press. ''And you might not get the vehicle back if
there is a failure.
    ''Human beings provide it with a lot more flexibility,'' he said.
    If there is problem, Young said, he and Crippen should be able to
locate, diagnose and correct it.
    ''NASA built a lot of redundancy into the major systems, so there is
a backup for just about everything that could go wrong,'' Young
tated. Still, the astronauts are prepared, in case of a system
failure, to cut short the planned 54-hour mission.
    ''Just about anything can break and we'll decide to go ahead and
terminate the flight,'' Crippen said.
    ''We've taken a very conservative approach - we're going to play it
safe,'' said Flight Director Charles Lewis. ''It's like the first
test flight of a new airplane. Why push it?''
    Perhaps the most dangerous part of the mission is when Columbia's
three main engines and its two solid-fuel booster rockets ignite on
the launch pad.
    Earlier American spacecraft were equipped with an escape tower - a
rocket attached to the nose - intended to pull the craft swiftly away
from an exploding rocket during liftoff and parachute it to safety.
    But Columbia's 80-ton weight and its shape - like a stubby-winged
jetliner - precluded an escape tower. Instead, the astronauts sit in
parachute-equipped ejection seats similar to those used by fighter jet
pilots.
    Some have expressed concern that the astronauts would be fatally
burned as they were shot through the massive fireball created by half
a million gallons of liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel and the erupting
solid-fuel rockets.
    Crippen said he wasn't worried.
    ''I guarantee if you pull that little handle, you will eject, and
all the data shows there should be no problem with survivability,'' he
said.
    If the four test flights are successful, NASA will consider the
spacecraft to be as reliable as a jetliner and remove the seats
altogether.
    To handle a problem - such as an engine failure - once Columbia is
off the pad, NASA devised a number of ''abort modes'' for a fast
emergency landing.
    If trouble occurs in the first 4 minutes and 23 seconds, the
shuttle, having jettisoned its two boosters but still firing its main
engines, would swing around and return to a 15,000-foot landing strip
at Cape Canaveral.
    Shuttle craft eventually will land back at Canaveral, but for the
first three or four flights, landing is planned for the wide-open lake
bed at Edwards Air Force Base in California, allowing a large margin
for error if runway landing goes awry.
    The most important in-orbit test comes early in the flight: The open
and closing of two giant doors on Columbia's 60-foot-long cargo bay.
Silvery panels just inside them are designed to radiate heat from the
crew cabin and from electronic devices throughout the spaceship.
    If the doors don't open, the astronauts would quickly return to
Earth, because they have only enough backup cooling to stay up for
about nine hours.
    Ten pairs of motors drive the latches that close the doors. If any
one motor fails, the shuttle would then return to Earth. That's
because, if the second motor in the pair should later fail, the doors
probably could not be closed and the ship might not be able to
survive re-entry.
    Upon its re-entry to the atmosphere, Columbia enters a region of
hypersonic speeds where no winged craft has ever flown before.
    It is not precisely known how well pilots can control the craft in
this region from about 400,000 feet down, so Columbia's computers will
command the critical re-entry, with Young taking over at 40,000 feet
for the landing.
    Mission Control will monitor closely during this phase to see if any
of the spaceship's 30,922 heat shield tiles have loosened or fallen
off. If any tiles have detached from high heat areas, where
2,700-degree temperatures sear the spacecraft, critical systems could
be burned, perhaps making a safe landing impossible.
    In such a case, if they are below 100,000 feet, the astronauts could
eject.
End Adv For Release - Before - NASA Shuttle Mission
    
ap-ny-04-05 2140EST
**********
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Apr-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  6 Apr 1981 2140-EST
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: catch a falling tile ...
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: king at RUTGERS

	Does anyone know how NASA expects to detect the fact that one
or more tiles has fallen off the Shuttle if that happens?  It recently
occured to me that (at least as far as I know) a lot of the Shuttle
was already built by the time anyone expected the tiles to be a
problem area.  30K-odd detectors (one beneath each tile), PLUS
ASSOCIATED WIRING, would seem to me to be expensive (relative term, I
suppose) and HEAVY.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Apr-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  7 Apr 1981 2051-EST
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: misc. shuttle topics
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: king at RUTGERS

	I wonder about one thing.  The Shuttle is pretty big.  I
wonder if it would be possible to carry a spare Gemini spacecraft in
the cargo hold.  If it looks like some tiles have come loose (a
spacewalking astronaut can determine this) the astronauts kick the
shuttle up into a slightly higher orbit (using fuel intended for
retrofire) to make it stay around for a decade or so; then they crawl
into their handy-dandy lifeboat and return to earth.  Of course, the
payload bay has to open...
	It has occured to me that if they embedded an octuple corner
reflector in each tile (visualize the intersection of the triple plane
X*Y*Z=0 with the sphere X^2+Y^2+Z^2<1) falling tiles could easily be
seen on radar.  The embedded reflector could be made of thin foil.
	Does anyone know whether the actual Columbia (as opposed to
just the Enterprise) has been used for practice landings?  Does anyone
know whether it would actually be cheaper to build an additional
Shuttle than to make the Enterprise spaceworthy?
	It has occured to me that a giant aluminum shell could come in
handy in space.  Are there any possibilities of taking the Shuttle's
belly tank into low earth orbit (perhaps at the cost of reducing the
main payload)?  I understand that the tank weight about 39 tons, which
is slightly more than the rated payload; perhaps version 2 of the
Shuttle (slightly longer-burning solid fuel rockets?) will have enough
oomph. 
	Now let's speculate on how badly the space program is wedged
if the Shuttle fails in a way that totally destroys it.  It shouldn't
matter too much, but I suspect it will, in fact, kill the program.  By
this reasoning they were right to have the first flight manned.  Live
pilots increase the chance of bringing the hardware back alive, at
least a little bit.  If the mission fails, I can see someone deciding
that <the loss of our space program for years> has only slightly less
negative value than (<the loss of our space program for years> + <the
loss of two astronauts>).  It's actually a reasonable decision, made
between consenting adults.  The (relatively) slight extra pain of a
manned flight going sour is more than balanced by the moderate
reduction in the chance that this will happen.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 07 Apr 1981 2152-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Log file moved
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Due to the latest disk Purge on SAIL I have moved the SPACE-Enthusiasts log
file off-line.  If you need to examine this log file let me know and I can
retrieve it for you.  Space Digests starting with this one will begin
accumulating on SAIL in the same old place.  Only the ones prior to April 8th
are off-line.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 08 Apr 1981 1005-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Using the Shuttle External Tank   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The ET can be put into orbit at a sacrifice of between 10 and 30 percent of 
the payload capacity of the Shuttle.  Apparently, NASA has re-contracted 
a new type of ET that is lighter than the original, and should therefore
be easier and less costly to orbit.  Several private companies have been
formed as industrial consultants on ET usage, but as of now, NASA has no
(public) plans to do anything but throw away the External Tank.  Sigh. 



------------------------------

Date:  8 APR 1981 1912-EST
From: REM at MIT-MC (Robert Elton Maas)
Subject: Fact is funnier than fiction
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

This afternoon while shopping I saw this young lady with a t-shirt that
showed the space shuttle in launch position.  While chatting about how
worried we were about tiles falling off during rentry, she pointed out
that the tiles on the shuttle on her shirt were falling (flaking) off too!
She got the t-shirt 3 years ago at Kennedy Space Flight Center.  Curious
that the t-shirt had the same design problem as the real shuttle!  Hope
they've fixed the tiles as well as the astronauts think they have.
(P.s. launch still scheduled between 6 and 7 am EST, 3 and 4 am PST the last
I heard.  I wonder which local stations will interrupt their normally
scheduled programming (test patterns) to show it live here in PST zone?)

------------------------------

Date: 08 Apr 1981 1646-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: NASA Administrator 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

A few weeks ago, the news services carried a story that James Beggs had been
proposed as director of NASA and that Reagan was going to make that proposal
official in ``about a week''.  I have heard nothing of this since and just
ran across a wire service story that said that NASA is still without an
administrator.  Does anyone know more about the Beggs appointment?  Is
Reagan waiting for the Shuttle to fly successfully/blow up before naming 
a director, perhaps??



------------------------------

Date: 9 April 1981 05:32-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: misc. shuttle topics
To: KING at RUTGERS
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

1. Unfortunately, North American says that it would cost more to
make the Enterprise spaceworthy than to buy a new orbiter; but
they have no objections to renaming the fifth orbiter if anyone
will buy it..

2. Putting fuel tanks in orbit is not only possible, but part of
the space plan for building the Operations Center; I've done a
couple of articles on it.

3.  I have just been told that they're running Shuttle first
flight at 9.1 psi 28% Oxygen because-because-because they
haven't improved full pressure suits in twenty years! The suits,
I am told, hold only 4.1 psi and it's for damn sure that if you
take a chap from 14.7 with 80% nitrogen and put him in pure
oxygen at 4.1 psi you have a guaranteed case of the bends in
less thatn 2 hours.  But to quick fix it (having, I am told,
discovered the problem last week, after only five years to think
about it)--to quick fix that with lower cabin pressure is
probably losing. Think of the cooling lossage at lower pressure;
electrinics will fry. Maybe.
	They damned well could have built new suits; hell, I
have been in suits at 10 pounds above ambient, and that was
twenty years ago!  They are paying $46 million for 43 suits;
you'd thnk they could get good ones for that price. I bet large
sums I can for $10 millon research design you with 12 pound
suits that i can buy for under $250,000 each, and probably for
under $25,000.
	Bat puckey. It's time for a Congressional investigation
of the kind of idiocy that produces results like that.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: BAK@MIT-AI
Date: 04/09/81 21:28:51
Subject: reusing external tanks

BAK@MIT-AI 04/09/81 21:28:51 Re: reusing external tanks
To: space at MIT-MC
According to Gerard O'Neill who spoke at MIT a couple of weeks ago, the
external tanks can be gotten into orbit with only a 3% reduction in
payload capacity from the maximum.  He said NASA has plans for using
them as construction materials for the first orbital and lunar habitats.
According to the NY Times, the external tank for tomorrows flight will
not make it into orbit; this is very curious (given O'Neill's statement)
considering that the payload bay will be empty for the first trip.


------------------------------

Date:  9 APR 1981 2248-EST
From: POURNE at MIT-MC (Jerry E. Pournelle)
Subject: hurrah-and maximum effort
To: BBOARD at MIT-MC, (*MSG *ITS) at MIT-MC, BBOARD at SRI-KL
To: BBOARD at SU-AI
CC: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC, ENERGY at MIT-MC

space enthusiasts are urged to send mailgrams or other
communications expressing their views on desirability of
permanent US manned presence in space (and for courtesy message:
please Mr. President, get well soon and LEAD US INTO SPACE).
	202 - 456-7116 or President Ronald Reagan, Office of
Science and Technology, Executive Office Building, Washington DC
20500.  L-5 Society Telephone tree and other space activists all
joining effort for this weekend.
	ad astra...

------------------------------

Date: 09 Apr 1981 1944-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Space Law (or the lack thereof)   
To:   space at MIT-MC, info-law at MIT-MC  

AP News Special
By CHARLES J. HANLEY
Associated Press Writer
    The development of the American space shuttle has left behind a
world still wrangling over how to put international order into the
largely lawless new frontier the revolutionary spacecraft will
exploit.
    With the shuttle, man will soon be doing things in outer space that
are simply not covered by the handful of international treaties that
pertain to extraterrestrial activity.
    There is one key treaty that would move significantly toward an
international ''space regime.'' It would declare the resources of the
moon and planets to be a common heritage to be shared among all
nations. But that treaty lacks the required number of signatory
governments and has not gone into effect.
    Long before a ''moon treaty'' finally takes force, American lunar
stations built with the aid of the shuttle may already be mining iron,
titanium or aluminum on the surface of the moon.
    The commercialization of space is not the only development
outstripping international law. The Pentagon's plans for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration shuttle have aroused new
international concerns that space will become a superpower
battleground.
    The Soviet Union has denounced the shuttle program as the opening
shot of a space arms race. The Soviets themselves, however, are at
work on space weapons, such as long-range laser ''guns'' and ''killer
satellites'' that destroy other orbiters.
    The shuttle, which can carry Earth satellites into orbit, is
expected to be used extensively for putting up military spy
satellites. U.S. defense officials say it might also eventually help
build giant manned space platforms that could serve as reconnaissance
or command posts for earthly combat.
    On the commercial side, the American craft may quickly monopolize
and expand the lucrative communications satellite business. It could
help build solar-energy stations in orbit, and even space factories
and mills, where minerals found on the moon or elsewhere could be
worked into construction materials or other products in a highly
efficient weightless environment.
    The new spacecraft could be a crucial step toward the mass
colonization of space.
    ''The shuttle does open new areas in space, and we may need some
specific new treaties,'' Marvin Robinson, secretary of the United
Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, said in an
interview.
    ''... Some in the Third World are concerned that things not move so
fast that they get left out or get in too late.''
    The ''frontier'' atmosphere of outer space was underlined last year
when NASA issued a new rule giving space shuttle commanders the power
of arrest and authority to use force if necessary in orbit. Agency
officials said the future arrival of large numbers of civilians in
space made the rule necessary.
    Four treaties now govern aspects of space travel. All were ratified
by the United States and the Soviet Union.
    The oldest, dating to 1967, declares that no nation can claim
sovereignty over parts of outer space and its celestial bodies, and
prohibits the placement of ''weapons of mass destruction'' in space.
    A 1968 treaty requires astronauts to do all possible to assist other
space travelers in distress, of whatever nationality. Under this
agreement, the highly mobile shuttle might be called on someday to
rescue Soviet cosmonauts.
    Another treaty, effective in 1973, makes the launching nation liable
for damage caused by falling space objects. The fourth agreement, in
force since 1976, requires launching nations to register their
satellites with the U.N. secretary-general.
    The ''moon treaty'' was adopted by consensus in the U.N. General
Assembly in December 1979 after negotiations in which the two space
superpowers played a central role. But since then neither the United
States nor the Soviet Union has ratified it, and it remains in legal
limbo.
    The treaty would mandate that exploitation of the moon and planets
be carried out ''for the benefit ... of all countries,'' would
prohibit any state from claiming the natural resources of space for
its own use, and would provide for establishment of an international
body to manage moon mining and similar endeavors so that the riches
will be ''equitably shared.''
    In the United States, the opposition to the moon treaty is led by a
group of staunch free-enterprisers called the L-5 Society - named
after a weightless point, L-5, between the Earth and moon deemed to be
ideal for a space station.
    The L-5ers, whose membership includes Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz.,
and science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein, believe in American-style
free exploitation of resources. The functions of any international
agency should be limited to registering claims, not confiscating
profits, they say.
    Other unsettled issues are proliferating.
    Equatorial nations complain about the many satellites stationed
permanently over their territory. Some nations insist they should have
easy access to geophysical information about their lands gathered by
others' satellites. Diplomats are debating regulations for the use of
nuclear power in space, and may soon have tive material and other
waste.
    



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 April 1981 04:47-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: reusing external tanks
To: BAK at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

This current test flight will be empty not because they didn't have
people wanting to buy the space, but because they don't want to make
things any more complicated than they already are.  PUtting the
external tank into orbit would unnecessarily complicate this
already-dangerous flight.  If this goes without a hitch (except the
delays before launch), I hope on next two test flights they may try
a little more adventure like maybe the tanks in orbit.
Does anybody know if they plan to put tanks in orbit on test flights 2 and 3

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 1981 1047-EST
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: orbiting shuttle fuel tanks
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: king at RUTGERS

	I was thinking about this a little bit and I decided it would
be a bad idea to orbit the shuttle tanks until we get the space
transprot business down "pat".  The 170-mile orbit is not a very
stable one - the tank would fall in a few years if it doesn't get
boosted to about 300 miles or so by a Payload Assist Module.
(remember that the tank is big but has low density.  Metal is expected
to reach the earth from the shuttle launch as now planned, and a fall
from orbit wouldn't be much different.)
	After the fracus from the infinitesimal danger caused by the
Sklylab fall, NASA shouldn't expose themselves to the possible adverse
publicity of a shuttle fuel tank fall until they have the demonstrated
means to prevent it.

	Does anyone know if work is being done on a solar powered ion
rocket payload assist module?  (SPAM?) Small numbers of such devices
can do enourmous work if you're not in a hurry, with none of this
nonsense about importing heavy fuel all the way from the earth's
surface.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 11 April 1981 12:39-EST
From: Thomas L. Davenport <TLD at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Who made the computers in the Shuttle?
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

I was under the impression that the four main computers in the Shuttle
were made and programmed by IBM and that, by design, the backup or
arbitrator unit was made and programmed by someone else, probably
Rockwell.  However, some people have claimed that all five machines
are IBM units, and that only the program of the fifth unit is
different.  What's the story?
-Tom-


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Apr-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: FONER@MIT-AI
Date: 04/12/81 12:06:59
Subject: Watching the Shuttle

FONER@MIT-AI 04/12/81 12:06:59 Re: Watching the Shuttle
To: Space at MIT-MC, Energy at MIT-MC
It has occurred to me that the Shuttle should be a naked-eye object,
especially if viewed at the right time of day.  From some (literally!)
back-of-the-envelope calculations, assuming that the Shuttle is 130
miles up and .1 miles long (around 500 feet), it should be 2.5 or 2.6
degrees of arc wide.  The moon is about 25 or 26 degrees of arc, so
the Shuttle should still be visible as a point if it's emitting light.

Since it hangs inverted, and the cargo bay doors must be open for
radiational cooling, the radiator panels are exposed.  These are
large, curved metal surfaces, and quite reflective.  It seems to me
that both sunlight and earthlight should reflect off them and be
visible on the ground, especially since they are *curved* surfaces
(and therefore will reflect over a wide region).

I'm not sure if it can be seen in daylight, though.  Does anyone have
any orbital plots giving the Shuttle's approximate position around
sunset or dawn in the next couple of days?  Since it will be in
sunlight, but nothing but the upper atmosphere on Earth will be, it
should be a clearly visible rather bright point.

I also have a 6" telescope; it should *definitely* be visible if I
know where to look.  Anybody have any info on this?

If I spot it today sometime, or get any info, I'll send it out if
anyone else wants to take a look.

[By the way, forgive me in distributing this to both lists.  What we
need is a list called SPACE-AND-ENERGY to take care of the duplicates,
I guess, since a large number of duplications exist.  And please let's
not discuss this issue more on either list, but rather in a small
group!]

						<LNF>


------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 1981 2255-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Columbia makes a splash 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

High and Mighty are Humbled by the Power of Columbia
By PAT LEISNER
Associated Press Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., (AP) - As the countdown hit two minutes before
launch, a hush fell over the stands. Jerry Brown got out his
binoculars. Neil Armstrong scrambled to the top of the bleachers for a
better look. Scores stood transfixed at water's edge, the closest
they could get to Columbia, 3 1/2 miles away.
    Tears welled and chants of ''Go, Go, Go,'' boomed from the crowd of
4,000 VIPS as the ground shook, flames spewed and the spaceship
thundered upright from earth in a billowing spiral of steam.
    ''Good liftoff, smooth flight, beautiful sight,'' said Armstrong,
the first man to walk on the moon.
    ''Fantastic, great,'' said Brown, the usually loquacious California
governor who stood awed and groping for words.
    ''There's nothing like having your organs shake inside you from the
force of those engines to bring about an awareness of what we're
doing,'' said Russell Schweickart, a former Apollo 9 astronaut.
    Schweickart clutched a calculator he used to simulate countdown
himself, then squinted into the blazing Florida sun and followed the
shuttle's path for four minutes after it streaked from pad 39A.
    ''It's awful good after much too long a pause to see us going up
again,'' he said. The mission, he said, is ''not to escape the Earth
but to care for Earth. I wish them God speed.''
    President Reagan, recovering at the White House from his bullet
wound, watched the launching of the space shuttle on television Sunday
and declared: ''It's a spectacular sight.''
    Politicians, diplomats and businessmen put other things aside to
return to the special viewing site at to watch astronauts John Young
and Robert Crippen finally blast off on their 54 1/2-hour mission.
    Among them were Sen. Jennings Randolph, D-W.Va.; Rep. Don Fuqua,
D-Fla.; former astronaut James McDivitt of Gemini 4 and Apollo 9,
representatives of space agencies in India, Spain and Germany,
corporate executives, families of space workers, and a pair of
science-fiction movie producers from Hollywood.
    The special invitation crowd had dwindled by one-third since
Friday's scrubbed launch, with movie stars, legislators and some of
the better-known celebrities among the missing. ''A lot of them had
other commitments and couldn't come back,'' said Arnold Richmond,
chief of visitors services for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
    NASA chartered a plane to ferry congressmen, senators and foreign
diplomats from Washington. Friday they used a wide-bodied jet that sat
260. Sunday it was a 727 with a 140-seat capacity.
    Steven Spielberg, producer of the space thriller, ''Close Encounters
of the Third Kind,'' stayed in Florida to wait for the launch.
    ''It's the the best, big bang I've ever seen,'' he said, sporting a
NASA baseball cap. ''I watched the thing take off. I watched the big
fire come out of the bottom of it. I realize movies are imaginative
and wonderful, but they are toys compared to this.''
    



------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 1981 2255-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Lost role for Mission Control
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Glory Days of Mission Control are Numbered
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    HOUSTON - It is a tableau familiar to millions of television
viewers, both today and in years past. Men in shirtsleeves, some with
cigarettes in hand, some with Styrofoam coffee cups at the elbow, sit
behind four ranks of control consoles, gazing at screens and switches
and lights and buttons. Up front, the expansive master trajectory
display board glows in contrasting black and turquoise.
    The viewers may have had one of their last glimpses of Mission
Control as they have known it. If all goes as planned, both its role
and its appearance are to be diminished in the years just ahead, as
the sophisticated space shuttle makes it partly obsolete. For the
maiden voyage of the shuttle Columbia, however, a bigger control team
than ever, crew-cut veterans and bearded new breed alike, sat gazing
calmly at the numbers on their consoles that told them that
everything was proceeding well when the Columbia blasted off Sunday
morning. They never looked at the live television pictures of the
launching, just at the numbers before them.
    For nearly two decades of manned spaceflight, the drama of Americans
venturing into the cosmos has seemed at times to focus with crackling
intensity in that single room of a windowless building on the back
streets of the Johnson Space Center.
    From there, just after Neil Armstrong announced from Tranquility
Base in 1969 that ''the Eagle has landed,'' completing the first
lunar touchdown, another voice conveyed the real tension of the
moment: ''We copy you down, Eagle. You've got a bunch of guys about
to turn blue.'' From there, during the ill-fated lunar flight of
Apollo 13, round-the-clock crews of engineers became heroes in 1971
by nursing the crippled spaceship home and saving the lives of three
astronauts.
    And it was there, on Friday, before the Columbia ever left its
launching pad, that the players in those earlier dramas faced their
first crisis of the shuttle era.
    When things are all right, the consoles glow with green lights.
Yellow lights mean there is a problem. Red lights signify
show-stopping trouble. At the first attempt to launch the Columbia on
Friday, one flight controller said, the room suddenly looked like a
Christmas tree. The Columbia's computers were refusing to talk to
each other. And however softly, the old tension crept back into the
room as the launching was postponed to allow experts to search for
the solution that they eventually found.
    For all that drama, the glory days of Mission Control are numbered.
The possibility of drama is not about to be eliminated. But the
physical sweep, even majesty, of the control center itself is on the
way out. If the space-shuttle program proceeds on course, Mission
Control will be diminished. Many of its functions are to be gradually
transferred to the shuttle, a craft whose complexity and
technological sophistication are expected to make it more autonomous
than any spacecraft before it.
    It is perhaps a step in the direction of the self-contained
spaceships of science fiction. As that happens, Mission Control is to
be radically redesigned, probably in the next two to three years, so
as to become almost a high-toned airport, or spaceport, control
tower, with a crew only one-fifth to one-third the size of the crews
used in the glory years of Project Apollo.
    At the same time, because of the variety of missions that the
shuttle is expected to undertake, Mission Control at the Johnson
Space Center will share its functions from time to time with other
space centers of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
and with the military.
    For the flight of the Columbia, and for a few subsequent shuttle
flights, Mission Control in Houston will be a more elaborate
operation than ever.
    ''This is the largest control team we've ever fielded,'' said Eugene
F. Kranz, the deputy director of flight operations at the space
center and one of the major heroes of the Apollo 13 rescue.
Twenty-four controllers, each monitoring or helping to operate a
specific shuttle function, will be on duty around the clock for the
flight of the Columbia and for later flights of several other
shuttles. Twenty controllers were used for the Apollo flights.
    But, said Kranz, who is deeply involved in shaping the
ground-control operation of the future, ''Once we've got 12 to 24
flights under our belt, and three or four of each type, we should be
able to very gradually start powering down the operations in the
control center.''
    ''Many people,'' he said, ''think of it as revolutionary. I think of
it as evolutionary.''
    If the shuttle's worthiness in space is proved and it is put into
frequent operation, Kranz said, enough functions will be transferred
to the shuttle so that Mission Control can get along with just seven
people for the relatively brief launching and re-entry of a flight
and just four for the orbital phase. The four, for this phase of
routine, workaday space operations, are the flight director; a flight
planner, who schedules the crew's day; a payload officer, who keeps
overall watch on the ship's payload, and a communications officer.
    Mission Control itself is to be altered physically to fit the new
alignment. Three smaller control rooms are to be constructed, one of
them a secure area assigned to military missions of the shuttle. By
1984, Kranz said, the alterations should be sufficient to allow two
shuttle missions to be run simultaneously.
    The other flight controllers will not be wasted. They are to be on
call in case of an emergency. They will also become part of a
restructured system for planning and managing space flights.
    



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 April 1981 10:34-EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <dlw at MIT-AI>
Subject: Shuttle
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

There aren't any plans to do anything with External Tanks except discard
them for the next many missions.  I am not sure yet when they plan to
think about doing other things with them.  Note that NASA is not likely
to "get more ambitious" and decide to do ANYTHING unexpected in the next
two, or even twenty, missions.  At least the next forty (I can't
remember the number) missions are all planned out, to some level of
detail (although some just say "X pounds of commercial cargo").

As for the question about the computers: all five computers are a
variant of the IBM/360, called the Four-Pi.  They are all hardwarily
identical, and they are hooked together in a symmetrical fashion in
hardware.  Four of them run sofware written by IBM.  The fifth runs
software written by someone else (we have heard suggestions that the
somebody else is Rockwell, or Draper, or Intermetrics, probably more
than one of those under some chain of subcontracting) completely,
including the operating system.  The idea is that the four primaries run
the same software and are voted among in order to protect against
hardware failure, and the backup is there to protect against software
bugs in the primary.

The press, in a press conference after the failed launch attempt, was
given the impression that the problem was that two of the primaries were
unable to communicate with the backup, and that this caused the program
crash.  A group of friends and I were at Kennedy covering the launch as
reporters, and there was a great deal of confusion about exactly what
happened.  We got in touch with someone at Houston who, although he was
from the P.R. department, had sufficient background in the computer
system that he could answer some questions.  It turns out, according to
him, that actually there are four communications paths between all five
of the computers, and that the number "two" refers to two of these paths
and has nothing to do with any particular primary computers.  The
problem is that there are two clocks in the system, a clock that runs
all of the five computers, and also a master clock (doubly-redundant)
for the entire system.  Both clocks are on the shuttle, not on the
ground.  When the first of the primaries starts up, it reads both clocks
and computes the difference between them.  The other primaries get this
delta number from the first primary, when they power up.  The backup,
when it powers up (far later, at T-20 minutes) recomputes what it thinks
this value ought to be and checks it against the primary computers' idea
of what it is.  This check revealed that there was a 40ms discrepancy,
and so it crashed.  The backup was right and the primaries were wrong.
Our source said that they had no idea yet why the primaries were wrong.

It should be stressed that we have not confirmed this information with
anyone else, and the source was not a technical expert, and I didn't
even speak to him myself, so you are getting this forth-hand.  Those of
you who have been reading the news will note that the story above is
extremely different from the one in the papers, which says that two of
the primary computers presented a certain datum 40ms before the backup
was ready to receive it, and that was what caused the error.  Indeed, we
were given the latter story at the press conference.  But, it doesn't
completely make sense, and we spent a lot of time trying to figure out
how only two of the primaries could be out-of-sync, and that those two
primaries could still run in the four-primary configuration, which is
supposed to run in lock-step.  We came up with several elegant but
moderately elaborate theories to fit the "facts" we got at the press
conference, but our source in Houston told us things that were quite
contradictory.  We hope to get back to Houston and talk to real software
people after the launch is over, when things are less hurried, and get
the real story.

P.S. The launch was utterly beautiful.  Congratulations, everyone: we
have a space program again!


------------------------------

Date:  13 April 1981 12:16 est
From:  York.Multics at MIT-Multics (William M. York)
Subject:  Shuttle fuel tank
To:  space at MIT-MC

Well, in the current implementation, the tank already falls back to
Earth and burns, scattering pieces, etc.  I this respect, putting it in
orbit would be delaying this event.  On the other hand, the way things
are now the re-entering pieces of the tank are targeted to land safely
in the Indian Ocean, and we couldn't predict where they would land
falling out of orbit.  Take the even, take the odd.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Apr-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 14 April 1981  14:50-EST
From: Bat Masterson <LOCKMAN.MASTERSON at RUTGERS>
Subject: Shuttle Landing
To:   space at mit-ai
cc:   Lockman.Masterson at RUTGERS


	From The Jumping The Gun Department:

Just having witnessed the first shuttle landing, when is the next??

				David


------------------------------

Date:  14 April 1981 23:00 est
From:  Tavares.WFSO at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Shuttle Cargoes
To:  SPACE at MIT-MC

Somebody mentioned a list of Shuttle cargoes, planned for the next 40 or so
trips.  Where can I latch onto this list?

------------------------------

Date: 14 April 1981 20:41-EST
From: Thomas L. Davenport <TLD at MIT-MC>
Subject:  The tires used on the shuttle Columbia.
To: AVIATION at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

Can anyone tell me who made them and if they are similar to any other
aircraft tires?  Thanks!
-Tom- 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Apr-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 1981 1603-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Monopole notes
To:   space at MIT-MC  

This message will be the leader for the Wednesday SFL digest.  Space
and Energy are welcome to use it as a pointer to this material for
thier people as well.

Jim

Administrivia - Notes on Magnetic Monopoles for FTPing

Date: 04/14/81 00:00:00
From: The Moderator <JPM@MIT-AI>
Subject: Notes on Magnetic Monopoles for FTPing


In response to an earlier inquiry made in the pages of this digest,
Hans Moravec has sent to SF-LOVERS some notes of his involving the
physical properties of magnetic monopoles.  

Everyone interested in reading this material should obtain the file
from the site which is most convenient for them.  If you cannot do so,
please send mail to SF-LOVERS-REQUEST and we will be happy to make
sure that you get a copy.

Please obtain your copies in the near future however, since the files
will be deleted in one week.  A copy of the material will also be
available upon request from the SF LOVERS archives.  Thanks go to
Alyson Abramowitz, Richard Brodie, Roger Duffey, Richard Lamson,
Doug Philips, Don Woods, and Paul Young for providing space for
the materials on their systems.

   Site          Filename
  
MIT-AI       DUFFEY;SFLVRS  MONO
CMUA         TEMP:MONO.SFL[X440DP0Z]
PARC-MAXC    [Maxc]<Brodie>SFLOVERS-MONO.TXT
SU-AI        MONO.SFL[T,DON]
MIT-Multics  >udd>sm>rsl>sf-lovers>monopole.text.
DEC 10&20    KL2137::FTN20:<SF>MONO.TXT
DEC VAX      KIRK::db1:[abramowit.sf]mono.txt

[Note, you can TYPE or FTP the file from SAIL without an account.]



------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 1981 2017-PST
From: Jeff Broughton <JMB at SU-AI>
Subject: Shuttle tires 
To:   space at MIT-MC  


One of the TV news reports stated that the shuttle tires were derived from
those for the B-1 bomber.



------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1981 0250-CST
From: Bob Amsler <CS.AMSLER at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: "And Where Were You When The Shuttle Landed" Phenomenon
To: space at MIT-MC

I believe it is called "flashbulb" memory, i.e. the remembrance of
exactly where you were/what you were doing when some major event
took place. I was at home watching TV. Afterward I came into work
and walked into the departmental office, saying "Did you see it, the
shuttle landing was magnificent!" ... to which I was greeted by
the reply (from someone not wanting to be bested for news), "Oh,
didn't YOU hear, it's taken off again". For 3 seconds I BELIEVED them.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 1981 2152-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: my exploits in florida
To: space at MIT-AI, sf-lovers at MIT-AI
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

I just got back from a week of viewing the launch and landing of 
the Space Shuttle, boy was it neat.  It happened I got in as press, and
was on this tour at the Kennedy Space Center.  I was walking down this hall
with a group of about 100 people when I thought I heard "mumble mumble 
SF lovers mumble mumble."  I could hardly believe my ears.  Then I heard
"mumble mumble arpanet node in ...".   It turned out that DLW, DANNY, 
LSP, and MARG (@AI) were on the same bus!!

I guess we are all over.  I wonder if I could have gotten press acreditation
to cover the launch as a representitve from SF-LOVERS???

Anyway, I wrote up my experiences for publication in the OASIS news, and 
maybe other places.  If anyone is interested in reading it, it is
here at ISIF in the file: <KATZ>story.shuttle.  You can FTP it by logging
in an anonymous.  

When the computer problem occured, we were all trying to figure out 
what had happen.  Contrary to some previous msgs, all five computers ARE IBM
and IBM wrote the code for the 4 primary ones.  The code for the backup
computer was written at Draper labs or somewhere.  If there is a software 
bug in the IBM code, chances are it won't be in the backup computer.  The
problem was a timing problem which resulted in the backup computer not 
being able to talk with two of the primary ones.  My roomate, who works
at Rockwell simulating the software, said that they could have just re-IPLed
the primary computers on Friday and launched, but they wanted to be sure
what the problem first.

Did any SF-lovers get together at the landing?? (It was a big place)


				Alan
-------


------------------------------

Date:  18 April 1981 03:00 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Clipping Service - Cannibalistic Galaxies
To:  space at MIT-AI

From the February, 1981, issue of Industrial Research and Development

Astonomers say 'maverick' stars are evidence of Milky Way Collision
........................................

     Astronomers from the Australian National University (ANU) in
Canberra have uncovered evidence that the Milky Way collided with and
swallowed up another galaxy about two billion years ago.

    The astronomers base their theory on the discovery of several
hundred million very high velocity young stars on the outer edge of
the galaxy. These stars have a different orbit, speed, and chemical
composition compared to the predominantly slow-moving stars of the
Milky Way, and their existence has been a mystery until now.

    The scientists, led by Dr. Alec Rodgers, of the Mount Stromlo
Observatory, said the only explanation for the existence of these
stars was that they were formed when the Milky Way collided with and
"cannibalized," a smaller galaxy. The spectacular collision led to
the formation of about 700 million "maverick" fast-moving stars and
the disappearance of the smaller galaxy which the astronomers believe
could have been a companion to the Milky Way's two satellite
galaxies, the Clouds of Magellan.

    Rodgers became interested in these maverick stars about 10 years
ago, but it is only recently with the aid of new equipment build by
ANU engineers that the team has been able to study the outer regions
of the Milky Way using the Observatory's 188cm (74 inch) telescope.

    The astronomers found that these maverick stars, which normally
make up about 0.1% of the total number of stars in the galaxy,
predominated in the outer regions. Rodgers said maverick stars were
not only fast moving, but also rich in metals. Other stars in the
galaxy were either old, fast-moving, and poor in metals or young.
slow-moving, and rich in metals.

    He said if the group was right in their interpretation of the
results, they had strongly improved the evidence for galactic
cannibalism and added a new dimension to understanding of the Milky
Way and its relationship to the Clouds of Magellan. He had developed
the galactic collision theory earlier this year and since then he and
his colleagues had been increasingly convinced of it.

    "It is a unifying hypothesis that affects many, many problems of
interpreting stars in the Milky Way," Rodgers said. He added that the
findings were presented without challenge to a colloquium of the
California Instituts of Technology.


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: MIKLEV@MIT-AI
Date: 04/18/81 14:33:16

MIKLEV@MIT-AI 04/18/81 14:33:16
To: INFO-SPACE at MIT-AI
Could I get on the list, please?


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 April 1981 23:00-EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <dlw at MIT-AI>
Subject: Space Shuttle
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

In answer to some recent questions:

The second shuttle flight is scheduled for late August or September.
NASA is a little touchy about giving out absolute times, since people so
often get on their case when they are late about things.  I don't blame
them.  Anyway, this misson, called STS-2, will also be flown by the
Columbia orbiter (the Challenger will not be ready to fly that soon).
It, as well as missions STS-3 and STS-4, is intended to be primarily a
test of the shuttle system; STS-5 will be the first production
cargo-carrying run, while in the first four flights most attention is
being paid to monitoring how the shuttle behaves.  Actually, I heard on
the radio today that because the STS-1 mission went so completely
swimmingly well, NASA may actually reduce the number of test flights
from four to three!  They will decide after STS-2 is complete.

The landing gear assembly, and presumably that includes the tires, was
manufactured by B.F. Goodrich.  I don't know anything special about the
tires, but I presume they are pretty much conventional airplane tires;
there's no reason they shouldn't be, that I know of.

As for that schedule of future flights, I'm eager to see that myself.
I'm not sure where I saw it but I have an idea, which I will track down.
If I find it, I'll let people know where it is.  By the way, the Space
Telescope is not going up until 1985.  I can't wait!

The press coverage of the Shuttle flight has all been quite positive.  I
have not seen any really harsh words directed towards NASA in any
publication at all.  I hope this boosts public acceptance of and interest
in the space program.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 April 1981 18:54-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Darn I wish the general public, especially people who write TV programs, 
especially those which are supposed to be educational, understood something
about space and mechanics (laws of motion etc.).  I was watching this
Electric Company episode because they had a couple cute skits before,
and then this skit started with theme from 2001 and this obelisk floating
around and coming to rest in the frame of the camera.  Then this astronaut
on a tether comes floating towards it and makes rendesvous.  Then he kicks
it and says "OW".  Then the obelisk starts breaking up.  Now here's where
the error occurs.  It's zero-gee obviously, else the astronaut couldn't float
towards it on a tether, with the tether floating all kinked-up all over
the place ... but when the obelisk broke up all the pieces fell "down",
towards the bottom of the camera frame.  Bletch!  (Shades of smoking rising
in vacuum on moon and billowing clouds/smoke in vacuum in space, on space.)
I can't wait for a film crew to go up on the shuttle and film some
scenes for movies and tv programs.  With actual zero-gee and vacuum
enforcing space-reality, they won't be capable of making such stupid mistakes,
and we'll see some decent special effects!  <Preceding was a flame, in
case you didn't notice.>  Anyway I turned off the program right after that
stupidness.  I boycott anything that is obviously an insult to my intelligence.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 April 1981 11:38-EST
From: Hans P. Moravec <HPM at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Oh, Robert.  How come you can look 20 levels deep when faced with a
math problem, and refuse to look past the first level in any
other situation?  When I saw the monolith break up and fall
down, I saw it as a clear attempt at
humor through incongruity.  After the 2001 lead in you expect the
monolith to behave majestically.  When it breaks up, that's surprising
and thus funny. When it falls to the bottom of the screen, that's
REALLY surprising, and even funnier.  Why, I could hardly contain
my giggles!
   If you insist on it making sense (which it clearly wasn't meant to
do) you could say that your first interpretation of the
scene, namely that it really was in zero gee, was wrong. Maybe
what you witnessed was an attempt a zero-gee simulation by suspended
wires that suddenly failed, to everyone's consternation, and your
amusement.  Of course, in cartoons the range of possibilities
is much wider, this being one of the great features of
the animated medium.  To be consistent, you should turn off your
TV whenever Wile E Coyote is compressed to a pancake by a truck, and lives to
run again another day.
Maybe you should sell your TV.
(Um, I guess you're NOT a Monty Python fan ...)

------------------------------

From: DLW@MIT-AI
Date: 04/21/81 12:18:09
Subject: STS-2

DLW@MIT-AI 04/21/81 12:18:09 Re: STS-2
To: space at MIT-MC
OK, I found the info about what is coming up next.  It says:

The six experiments scheduled to fly on the second shuttle mission are
the feature identitication and location experiment, Shuttle imaging
radar, Shuttle multispectral infrared radiometer, ocean color
experiment, measurement of atmospheric pollution from space, and
optical survey of lightning.

We saw some of this being integrated at KSC.  The radar is
impressive-looking; it is almost as long as the entire cargo bay.
Another interesting thing we were told is that instead of just
shipping down raw data as is the usual NASA practice, they are
going to actually do non-trivial processing of the information
from the radar and the radiometer on-board, and ship down this
processed data, presumably saving large amounts of bandwidth.


------------------------------

Date: 21 April 1981 2301-EST (Tuesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Shuttle tidbits
Message-Id: <21Apr81 230155 DS30@CMU-10A>

Since I just came aboard the space mailing list, please forgive my late
comment on some old, dead topics.
There was some talk about the space suits.  The astronauts wore ordinary
pressure suits of the type that SR-71 pilots wear.  If an EVA had been 
necessary, they would have used the newly developed space suits, which
were also carried onboard.

As for the ability to carry the external tank into orbit, the OMS burns to
achieve orbit amounted to less than 700 feet per second, if I recall the
Aviation Week article correctly.  Surely, the shuttle would have the 
wherewithal to accelerate the tank that little bit if it omitted lifting
a 65000 pound payload to 100 miles and 17,500 mph.  No need to go look
up experts.

And now for a question.  In an April 6 Aviation Week article, it says that
the first liquid engine ignites at T-3.46 sec., with the others following
at 120 msec intervals.  By T+0.24 sec, they reach 90% thrust.  At T+3 sec,
the solid boosters ignite, with liftoff coming "instantaneously."  What
happens at T+0 that is so significant that time is marked from it?

		- David Smith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: DLW@MIT-AI
Date: 04/22/81 12:58:35
Subject: Space Shuttle

DLW@MIT-AI 04/22/81 12:58:35 Re: Space Shuttle
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
Regarding putting the External Tank into orbit: while the OMS rockets
do seem to have enough raw energy to do this, raw energy is not the
only consideration.  How would the shuttle be affected by having that
tank still attached to the orbiter after t+8 minutes?  What would
serve to maneuver the ET into exactly the desired orbit?  After all,
the ET is a pretty ungainly object, and there is nothing on it
that makes it particular easy to maneuver.  (In fact, there is
special hardware to make it tumble during re-entry!)  In all
the Shuttle literature I have access to, including a 28-page blurb
from the ET contractor (Martin Marietta), there is no mentin of
any plans to do anything eith ETs other than toss them into the
ocean.  Has anyone heard anything more firm from NASA about plans
for orbiting the ETs?  And for how long would they stay in Low Earth
Orbit without that orbit decaying?  The thing has a lot of surface area.

As for the countdown, here's what the "Shuttle Launch Countdown"
blurb says:

T-0M03.8S: Engine Ignition.  All three engines start separated by 120
millisecond intervals.  They throttle up to 90 percent thrust level in
three seconds.  When all three engines are at 90 percent thrust, the
SRB ignition sequence starts.  There is approximately 2.64 seconds
between T-0 and SRB ignition to allow for the "twang" or forward
movement of the Shuttle at Main Engnie Start.  The engine start and
thrust checks are made by the four primary flight computers.

T+0M3S: SRB Ignition.  At this time, the SRBs are ignited, the holddown
bolts are blown and the T-Zero umbilical explosive bolts are blown
under command of the four flight computers.  This Mission Elapsed Time
Resets to Zero.  The Shuttle lifts off the pad and clear the tower
approximately 6 seconds later.

That is what it says, typoes and all.  My guess is that they simply
have to choose a time somewhere in this mess of events to designate as
T-Zero, and maybe they just put it roughly in between the Main Engine
and SRB Ignition points, for symmetry.


------------------------------

Date: 23 April 1981 04:13-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle tidbits
To: David.Smith at CMU-10A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The "newly developed space suits" seem to have a 4 psi rating;
causing the aft bay power panels in Shuttle to be derated by
about 50%, because you can't EVA at 4 psi from a 14.7 psi
environment and not get **problems**.
	We had better suits than that under development in the
60's, but apparently that was abandoned along with the splendid
team at Brooks AFB.
	*S*i*g*h*

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Apr-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 April 1981 1404-EST (Thursday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  ET in orbit
Message-Id: <23Apr81 140419 DS30@CMU-10A>

I wasn't talking about using the OMS rockets to get the ET to orbit,
but using the main engines on ET fuel.  I don't know why that would
be any more ungainly than it already is.  Of course, maneuvering in
orbit will be slower if the orbiter doesn't let go.  The 500-mile
limit of the shuttle should provide an orbit good for many years.
(Question:  Is the 500-mile limit due to the tiles?)

Maybe Nasa and Martin Marietta haven't said anything about using the
ET in orbit, but then, the S-IVB wasn't designed with Skylab in mind.
Originally, Skylab was to be the second stage of a Saturn I-B, full
of fuel, etc.  The flooring grids were to be in place at launch, but
the other equipment installed (or unfolded into place) in orbit.  Then
the moon flights were cut, and a Saturn V became available, so 
they used its lower two stages to launch a fully outfitted Skylab
(still made out of an S-IVB, but without the propulsion system).

If they intended to reset the clock to zero at liftoff, why didn't
they reckon the minus count from liftoff?

		- David Smith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 1981 0937-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: A new NASA chief, finally!!! 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a043  0331  24 Apr 81
PM-Washington Briefs,510
    WASHINGTON (AP) - James Montgomery Beggs, a General Dynamics Corp.
executive and undersecretary of transportion in the first Nixon
administration, is President Reagan's choice to head the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    The nominations of Beggs and Hans Mark, secretary of the Air Force
since 1979, to be his deputy at NASA were announced Thursday by the
White House.
    Beggs, 55, an executive vice president at General Dynamics, was
associate administrator in NASA's Ofice of Advanced Research and
Technology in 1968-69. Mark, 51, was director of NASA's Ames Research
Center from 1969 to 1977.



------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 1981 0938-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: External Tank usage
To:   space at MIT-MC  

To the best of my knowledge, NASA has never admitted to plans for using the
ET for anything other than its design function.  But a fairly cumbersome
and critical maneuver is executed to get rid of the tank, (the Shuttle drops
from (if memory serves) 75 to 63 nautical miles in altitude in order to lose
the tank safely) whose elimination should make orbiting the tank somewhat
easier.

I have *never* seen a NASA contractor produce plans for using the ET, even
in speculative artwork.  Incidentally, at Equicon in LA, somebody (I think
it was Rockwell) had some fairly detailed stuff on a Next-Generation Shuttle.
The ship was a single stage, airport to LEO to airport craft that used
``modified SR-71'' engines.  So at least somebody out there is thinking in
the right direction.

						-- Tom



------------------------------

Date: 24 April 1981 15:46-EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <dlw at MIT-AI>
Subject: Shuttle
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Yeah, well, I'm not saying it's impossible to get the ET in orbit.  All
I am saying is that just because the raw energy is there doesn't mean
that it is necessarily possible without lots more work.  But maybe it
is.  It depends on a lot of things.

I doubt that the shuttle's altitude is limited by the tiles very much,
since if it had the power to get into a higher orbit then is could
presumably get back into the lower orbit and then land just the way it
usually does.  I always assumed that the problem is the raw energy.  The
SRB/SSME power, plus the OMS-1 and OMS-2 burns, are needed to get it
into orbit at all, and more OMS burns are used to boost and adjust the
orbit a bit.  Going significantly higher probably requires noticably
more energy, and I gather that the way things are done now, it isn't too
useful to get much higher unless you are going all the way to
geosynchronous orbit.  I get this idea because of the way NASA people
talk about things to be done in LEO (low earth orbit) without much
regard for exactly how high they are.

I don't know what the reason is for the weird resetting of the mission
time.  My best guess is that things that depend on the countdown time
(the negative times) are pretty well separated from the thing that
depend on the mission time (the positive times), and so those two don't
really have much to do with each other and are actually separate clocks.
So they just didn't agree on the convention for what T=0 is and it
really doesn't make any difference.  After all, the countdown-related
stuff is mostly at KSC and the mission-related stuff is mostly at JSC,
which doesn't prove anything but is a hint that the two are not closely
related.  This is just a guess, though.

I have a question for everyone: who knows what the current state of
planning and funding for the VOIR project is?  I hear from some sources
that it has been cut from the budget and will never happen, and from
others that it is scheduled to be launched on a shuttle in 1988.  Does
anyone know the latest story?


------------------------------

Date:     24 April 1981 2036-est
From:     Jay Pattin                 <Pattin at MIT-Multics>
Subject:  shuttle schedule
To:       SPACE@MC

   Friday's Boston Globe has a tentative schedule for the next 3 shuttle
launches as follows: 9/23/81, 12/31/81, 4/30/82. A possible date for the
first "real" launch is 9/15/82. This article is reprinted from the
Washington Post, so the dates should be taken with an even bigger grain
of salt.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: KWH@MIT-AI
Date: 04/25/81 15:16:31

KWH@MIT-AI 04/25/81 15:16:31
To: space at MIT-MC

I think its cute how the third shuttle launch, according to the thing from
the Washington Post, is scheduled to be on New Years Eve.  It might
definitely be worth it to go to Florida and KSC for the Christmas
holidays...

What is VOIR, anyway?  It sounds vaugely familiar, but....

Is any methods for non-standard attaining of LEO being examined by NASA.
For example, the magnet lab here has come up with a proposed EARTH-BASED
magnetic catapult which would run (second estimate) around 500 million
dollars- That's cheap for a magnetic road to the stars.  Or how about Bob
Forward's (I think he came up with it first- Pourne used it a lot after
that though..) laser launching system?  How does the power of the
Livermore zap-sats compare to what you would need to launch cargoes by a
laser system?

					Cheers,
						Ken Haase

[I will interject a few comments here:

VOIR stands for Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar, the word also means something
reld in French.  It is a project to get detailed maps of the venus surface
by using high resolution radar imaging systems, similar I believe to the
system used in the F-15.  Anyway this project was severely cut and delayed in
the OMB cuts.

The Livermore zap-sats use a nuclear explosion as their energy source.  Thus
this is not useful for the laser system you mentioned.  There is always Orion
of course if you want to use nuclear explosions to drive space ships.

	-ota]
------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 April 1981 05:24-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
To: KWH at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Al Kantrowitz first thought up the idea of laser launchers.  A.
N. Pirri and ??. Weiss at Avco Everett tried it out and flew
models. I first used it in science fiction stories.

------------------------------

Date: 27 April 1981 05:37-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle
To: dlw at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Holy catfish.  Harry Stine has TONS of data on using ET's in
orbit to build things out of.  The plans have been looked at by
many.  It takes a little extra delat v meaning a lower orbital
altitude when done, but you CAN get aht tank in orbit.
	One SPS plan used ground up ET's for reaction mass with
SEPS to go from LEO to GEO.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 APR 1981 1144-EDT
From: HITCHCOCK at CCA (Chip Hitchcock)
Subject: nomenclature
To:   space at MIT-MC

  From context, I guess that GEO is supposed to mean something like
Geosynchronous Earth Orbit, which is tautologous; perhaps the term
should be GSO or GsO? And is SEPS the ion rocket (as shown in Haldeman's
latest, WORLDS)?

P.S. "voir" is French for "to see"
-------

------------------------------

Date: 27 April 1981 13:18-EDT
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW at MIT-AI>
Subject: Shuttle
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

That's interesting.  Who is Harry Stine?  Is there anything published
or otherwise available that I can read about his plans?  Do you know
if there is any official NASA position about all this?


------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 1981 1022-PDT
From: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE
Subject: external tank
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE

What is the mass of the external tank, and how does that compare with
the mass of the payload or the shuttle itself?
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Apr-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 04/28/81 1332-EDT
From: j.baldassini
Sender: GNC at LL
Subject: Leftover fuel in the shuttle's external tank
To: space at mit-mc

    I don't think NASA would launch the shuttle without a fuel reserve in the
external tank, thus when the e.t. is released, there is still some fuel left in
it. If the shuttle were to carry the e.t. to LEO, with a corresponding reduction
in payload, there may still be fuel remaining in the e.t. Would it not be
possible for the e.t. to be modified to burn this fuel, and propel itself into
a (more) stable orbit ?
-------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 1981 1126-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: NASA PR lacking    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n014  0735  28 Apr 81
BC-SPACE
(ScienceTimes)
By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - What a great opportunity the space shuttle might have
been for selling insights as well as junk food and gimcracks!
    They came to Cape Canaveral by the million this month, to watch the
shuttle's maiden liftoff. They jammed the hotels and motels and
campsites, they gorged on leathery hamburgers, they sunned themselves
red. America came with its kids to see the big rocket go up.
    The shuttle show lasted only two minutes, but as it happens, central
Florida offers lots of other diversions to fill out a vacation. For
instance, there's nearby Disney World, where kids can pose with
Mickey Mouse, and there's the Kennedy Space Center itself, where kids
can pose with make-believe astronauts.
    As a matter of fact, many children may have left Florida believing
that astronauts and Mickey Mouse came from the same mold - both
calculated to excite fantasies and neither related to the real world.
    (One could imagine some peculiar geographic affinity between Disney
and large government expeditions. American installations in
Antarctica are built and serviced these days by Holmes and Narver of
Anaheim, Calif. - home of Disneyland.)
    The visitors' center at Cape Canaveral looks like an annex of Disney
World. Attractions include a rocket park, in which a dozen or so of
NASA's earlier products tower like enigmatic obelisks over an
enchanted kingdom. The visitor can walk along a gangplank once used
by astronauts on their way to the moon, and look at a lunar landing
module made by Grumman, the company whose buses have given New York
City so much trouble. There are mockups and models and sound effects,
and there are Disneyesque animated movies of space exploration.
    There are souvenir concessions peddling shuttle T-shirts, ashtrays,
pens and toys mass produced in Taiwan for the occasion.
    There are crowd-pleasing demonstrations. A NASA lecturer enlivens
one of them by heating a protective tile from the shuttle to
incandescence, and then touching its edges without being burned.
    There's a bus tour, in which people get to photograph a dismantled
Saturn rocket, the outside of the shuttle launch pad and the huge
''crawler'' that trundles spaceships around.
    Well contented, America's kids left after the big launch, smeared
with ketchup stains and confident that they had learned all about
their country's space program. It only remained to report on it to
envious classmates back home.
    But alas, the whole show seemed to consist of sugar coating with
little trace of hard substance.
    One would not expect to find textbooks about chemistry, physics or
computer algorithms at the visitors' center at Cape Canaveral, much
less souvenir editions of Newton's ''Principia.'' But after all, the
shuttle was something more than a Disney spectacular, and perhaps
deserved a higher order of public relations. It was a tangible
synthesis of man's efforts since the dawn of history to understand
the universe around him, not merely a two-minute interlude between
Sea World and Disney World.
    The shuttle was no less an accomplishment for our age than was the
Great Pyramid for Pharaoh Khufu's Egypt. The pyramids were built by
legions of fellahin with strong backs, hauling immense stone blocks.
By contrast, the shuttle took hundreds of thousands of intelligent
and disciplined minds, struggling painfully over the years and
centuries to overcome the millions of problems that arose along the
way.
    Some recent ones: What are the mathematics of compromise between
shapes suited to moving in air and those at home in space? How do you
go about creating materials stronger and lighter than steel, strong
even at 6,000 degrees? How do you make a robot pilot smarter and
faster than the greatest imaginable human pilot?
    What subjects would you expect to have to study before tackling such
problems?
    For all the glib and confusing jargon that pervades its briefings
and press conferences, NASA neither raises nor answers such
fundamental questions in its dealings with ordinary Americans. Our
space agency tacitly seems to assume that there is little common
ground between a priestly caste of scientific technology on one hand
and an ineducable public on the other. Thus, NASA communicates with
the people as it would to a not-very-bright fifth-grader.
    There's nothing wrong with Disney. Many a scientist acknowledges a
debt to the late cartoonist for such productions as ''Fantasia,''
which conveyed artfully wrapped scientific messages to generations of
children.
    But there's no getting around the fact that science is hard and
getting harder. It will take more than childish delight in Mickey
Mouse and the shuttle to move it forward.
    
nyt-04-28-81 1025edt
**********



------------------------------

Date:  28 April 1981 12:14 edt
From:  Tavares.WFSO at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Re: SPACE Digest
To:  Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
In-Reply-To:  Message of 28 April 1981 07:01 edt from Ted Anderson

Harry Stine is G. Harry Stine, author and general space consultant (and,
not incidentally, is recognized as the "father" of the spacemodeling
hobby and of the organization whose magazine I represent).  A recent
book of his, titled "The Space Engineers" or something similar will give
you an idea where his head is at.  Interesting reading, I have been
told.

A speaker at the recent (this weekend) MIT Rocketry Convention addressed
both the T+0 and ET questions.  He said that sensors on the Shuttle
determine when the liquid engines get up to 100% power and when the
Shuttle itself has stopped "twanging", and pick the optimum moment to
fire the solids, blow the launch bolts, and reset the elapsed clocks.
The implication was that 100% firing was NOT one of those "timed and
predicted to the millisecond" items that Shuttle launches seem to be so
full of.  In my opinion, good asynchronous feedback technology makes a
lot more sense than critical timing predictions anyway, but then, I'm no
aerospace technician.

As for he ET, his statement was that NASA was of the opinion that it
would be a lot more useful getting something up there that was made for
the proper job (structural use, human habitation, or whatever) than
trying to convert an ET to random uses.  Perhaps there is something to
that-- would YOU want to live in a burned-out engine casing?!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************
30-Apr-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest  
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:
			      Administrivia
		      So who cares about California?
			       nomenclature
				 Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 1981 0305-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Administrivia
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Well I finally got around to hairing up the macros which format the
SPACE Digests.  The major new features are that the issue number will
automatically be incremented for every digest sent out.  I may
periodically reset issue number and increment the volume number, but
then again I may not. It also collects all the subject lines of the
messages and puts them in the from similar to the style of Duffey's
digest format.  This means that the subject lines have some real
significance.  I am not making them up (they are, as always,
automatically collected) so make them meaningful.



------------------------------

Date: 29 April 1981 1056-EDT (Wednesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  So who cares about California?
Message-Id: <29Apr81 105606 DS30@CMU-10A>

According to an article in Aviation Week (Apr. 27), Nasa has thought about
trading a little payload for height.  It involves hanging onto the ET
a little longer, dropping it into the eastern Pacific.  Parts of it
might fall on California -- ah, well.  To prevent this, they could add
a system to blow the tank to bits as it hits the atmosphere.

------------------------------

Date: 30 April 1981 05:22-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: nomenclature
To: HITCHCOCK at CCA-TENEX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

we pay the words more when they have to mean what we want.

LEO, HEO, and GEO are now fairly common jargon in the space
business, and they are useful: Low Earth Orbit, High Earth
Orbit, and Geosynchronous Earth Orbit. And fie if you find it redundant.

------------------------------

Date: 30 April 1981 05:23-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle
To: DLW at MIT-AI
cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

G. Harry Stine, who writes the other half of The Alternate View
column with me.  See Stine, THE SPACE ENTERPRISE

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #108    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 108

Today's Topics:
		    Another pair of married Astronauts
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 1981 0414-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Another pair of married Astronauts
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n105  2037  29 Apr 81
BC-PEOPLE-IN-THE-NEWS UNDATED
c. 1979 N.Y. Times News Service
    Although they could very well be the first husband and wife in outer
space, Dr. Margaret Rhea Seddon and Lt. Cmdr. Robert Lee Gibson, both
astronauts, will settle for a trip to Hawaii by conventional jet
following their marriage May 30 in her home town of Murfreesboro,
Tenn.
    Dr. Seddon, the first woman to gain the full rank of astronaut, was
a resident in nutrition and surgery at City of Memphis Hospital in
1978 when she was among the first six women chosen for astronaut
training. During the flight of the space shuttle Columbia she was at
Cape Canaveral, Fla., aboard one of two standby helicopters. Dr.
Seddon and Gibson have dated for two years since meeting at the
Johnson Space Flight Center in Houston, where they are now stationed.
    The only previous astronaut couple, Drs. Anna and William Fisher,
both physicians, were married before joining the space program.
    Since Gibson is a pilot and Dr. Seddon would serve as a ''mission
specialist,'' the couple ''have as good a chance as any'' to fly
together, Dr. Seddon told The Nashville Tennessean Wednesday. If so,
she said, ''We'll be so busy up there we won't even have to time to
say 'hello.'t''

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #109    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 109

Today's Topics:
			       nomenclature
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 01 MAY 1981 1138-EDT
From: HITCHCOCK at CCA (Chip Hitchcock)
Subject: nomenclature
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC

In response to your message sent  30 April 1981 05:22-EST

   "we pay the words more when they have to mean what we want."

  Remember what happened to Humpty Dumpty. . . .

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #110    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:
			Space shuttle Computer - W
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  4 May 1981 (Monday) 0105-EDT
From: WESTFW at WHARTON-10 (William Westfield)
Subject: Space shuttle Computer - W
To:   space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC


"Both the software and the hardware for the shuttle is recognized
 as the most advanced ever used for aerospace purposes. Still, the
 hardware is, according to Edward Chevers, chief of Johnson Space
 Center's Data Systems Branch, 'an airborn version of the IBM360. The
 technology is at least 12 years old. At the moment the computers still
 function with core memory. We hve plans to go to solid state memory by
 the 15th launch, which will be in 1985 or 1986.'
......
 Chevers mentioned that the updates to the hardware will only be
 enhancements. 'Bringing the system up to today's technology would take
 completely new software. That's a little too much."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hummph.  I'm embarrassed again.  What did they use for the moon flight,
	Eniacs ?



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-May-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #111    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:
			 Apollo guidance computer
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  4 May 1981 1313-EDT (Monday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Apollo guidance computer
Message-Id: <04May81 131305 DS30@CMU-10A>

In Bell & Newell's book "Computer Structures:  Readings and Examples" there
is an article about the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC), reprinted from
IEEE Trans. EC-12, Dec. 1963.  It doesn't unambiguously say that it is to
be used in the moon flights, but does say, "The AGC is an onboard computer
for one of the forthcoming manned space projects."  It is rather refreshing
in that it doesn't claim to be the best thing since sliced bread, and
admits that some design decisions (such as a 15-bit word) were brought
along from previous (incompatible) designs.

Some of the specifics are as follows.  Ram was core;  rom was rope memory.
Both cycled in 12 microseconds.  Word length was 15 bits, except for
accumulator, which had 16 bits.  (This was for overflow indication.)
Instruction format was 3 bits for opcode, 12 bits for address.  When
designing the predecessor computer, the MOD-3C, they had decided that
4000 words would be plenty, but now they realized that they really
needed 10,000 words.  So instead of making the computer into a 17-bit
machine, they provided bank switching for addresses 6000-7777 (octal).
"The possibility of using two bank registers is worthy of consideration,
but it did not occur to us."

Rather than an index register, they provided an index instruction which
added its operand to the following instruction (for purposes of execution
only).  This addition could affect the following opcode as well.
They even wired up the machine so that overflow from the index operation
was treated as an opcode bit.  This provided room for the instructions
subtract, multiply, and divide.

The Pdp-11 stole its memory-mapped I/O from the AGC.  There were also
a few active memory locations for shifting right and left.

If I recall correctly, the PR about the shuttle's computers rated them
as around 40 times the speed of the AGC, or 400,000 instructions/sec.
So AGC must have been rather slow.  On top of that, "Most of the
programs relevant to navigation were written in a parenthesis-free
pseudocode notation for economy of storage..."  No wonder it was
flashing OVERLOAD as Armstrong and Aldrin were looking for a place to
set down!

		David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 04 May 1981 1255-PDT
From: Jeff Broughton <JMB at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

"Hummph.  I'm embarrassed again.  What did they use for the moon flight,
	Eniacs ?"

Well, they did use an HP-65 for backup on the latter flights...



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #112    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 112

Today's Topics:
		      Govenment Purchased Computers
			     Shuttle Software
				Computers
			 Gemini onboard computer
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  4 May 1981 11:41 edt
From:  Janofsky.Tipi at MIT-Multics (Bill Janofsky)
Subject:  Govenment Purchased Computers
To:  SPACE at MIT-MC
cc:  WESTFW at Wharton-10

Re: What did they use for the moon flight, Eniacs??

CERTAINLY NOT! The lowest bid was by Charles Babbage!
		Bill J.

------------------------------

Date:  4 May 1981 12:46 edt
From:  Tavares.WFSO at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Shuttle Software
To:  Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
In-Reply-To:  Message of 4 May 1981 07:01 edt from Ted Anderson

According to a speaker at the MIT Rocket Convention, the backup computer
carries different software on purpose, on the premise that if a software
bug exists which is bad enough to disable ALL the other identical
computers, the last backup better not be running the same software.

------------------------------

From: DLW@MIT-AI
Date: 05/05/81 12:17:15
Subject: Computers

DLW@MIT-AI 05/05/81 12:17:15 Re: Computers
To: space at MIT-MC
Actually, for the Moon program they had the Apollo Guidance Computer,
which I think is one of the classic early attempts at a computer
built with multiple CPUs for reliability.  Presumably all that happened
with the shuttle is that they chose IBM as the contractor, and since
IBM is totally locked into 360s, it isn't surprising that they
used militarized 360s; what else?


------------------------------

Date:  5 May 1981 1225-EDT (Tuesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Gemini onboard computer
Message-Id: <05May81 122503 DS30@CMU-10A>

If I recall flight and astronaut correctly, it was Stafford on Gemini 6
who used a 15 inch diameter circular slide rule to do orbital rendezvous
calculations.  Ground computers were primary, but he got the same answers
in good enough time.

[I guessed Stafford, because it stuck in my mind that it was the first
rendezvous, but it also sticks in my mind that it was Aldrin, who flew
later.]

------------------------------

Date: 05 May 1981 1211-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

    HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - Author James Michener promised Tuesday that
his next book on America's space program would be good news to his
publisher and readers who don't like too many pages.
    ''It will be a shorter book and it will not start four million years
ago,'' he said with a smile at an awards ceremony in the Pennsylvania
state Capitol. Michener's novel ''Centennial'' opened by tracing life
in Colorado back before the dinosaurs.
    Michener did not disclose the title of his half-finished new novel,
but he did describe it as ''not science fiction but the role of space
in American society in the last 20 years.
    ''I'm on the advisory council that supervises NASA (the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration) so I've been working in space
diligently the last three years,'' he said.
    Michener, a Pennsylvania native who now lives in Pipersville, Pa.,
was in Harrisburg to accept the second annual Distinguished
Pennsylvania Artist Award.
    
ap-ny-05-05 1506EST
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #113    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 113

Today's Topics:
			  Japanese space shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  6 May 1981 2147-EDT (Wednesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Japanese space shuttle
Message-Id: <06May81 214740 DS30@CMU-10A>

From Flight International, 2 May 1981:

    Japan's National Space Development Agency is planning a manned
    mini-Space Shuttle for the early 1990s, according to the London
    Times.  The vehicle will be about 7.5m long and will weigh 10
    tonnes, compared with 37m and 75 tonnes for the US Shuttle.  The
    proposed reusable rocket would carry a crew of four, and an
    auxiliary engine would be used to confer better re-entry manoeuvrability.
    Much of the size reduction will be achieved by using miniaturised
    electronics and controls.

Hmmmmm...  How big are the Shuttle's computers, anyhoo?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #114    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 114

Today's Topics:
			   New Shuttle Design 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 07 May 1981 1214-PDT
From: Rod Brooks <ROD at SU-AI> and
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: New Shuttle Design 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

By STACY V. JONES
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    WASHINGTON - Aerospace technologists at the Langley Research Center
in Hampton, Va., have devised a new launch system for orbiting
vehicles that is described as much less costly than the space shuttle
method.
    Patent 4,269,416, assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, was granted this week to Liam R. Jackson, J.hm P.
Weidner, William J. Small and James A. Martin.
    Two or more turbojet propelled booster vehicles are to be attached
to a rocket-powered orbit craft. They take off horizontally under
their combined power, and when they reach a practical height the
boosters are released and guided by radio to a landing site.
    So far, only wind tunnel tests with models have been made. These are
reported to have proved the system aerodynamically practical.
    According to the patent, the current space shuttle's launch costs
are high, largely because of the need to replace the expendable
propellant tanks and the recovery and refueling of the solid rocket
motors. The new system is described as having potentially low initial
and operating costs. The boosters, which are released by explosive
bolts, are to be relatively small, and the total weight, including
the orbit vehicle, is described as about half that of the present
space shuttle.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #115    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 115

Today's Topics:
	a defense of the choice of computer for the space shuttle
			   Flight International
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  8 May 1981 2040-EDT
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: a defense of the choice of computer for the space shuttle
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: king at RUTGERS

	I've been thinking about the various comments that have been
made in this forum concerning the shuttles' computers ("C-O-R-E???
horrors!" and "only 400 K instructions per second???" (or whatever)).
The decisions as made are defenseable.  I will first discuss the use
of core.
	Core is robust, non-volatile, comparitively immune to noise on
its power or signal leads (as compared to semiconductor memory) and is
relatively immune to radiation.  Semiconductor memory's main
advantages are lower power consumption, speed, size, and cost.  It is
extremely vulnerable to electrical noise and rather vulnerable to
radiation.  Its vulnerability to static electricity also makes service
under field conditions considerably more difficult.  I will discuss
the semiconductor advantages first, and attempt to show that they
don't outweigh the disadvantages for the shuttle.
	More about speed later.  Cost is obviously not a factor.
While I could see the power consumption as the determining factor in
many space applications, the difference (I believe about 3-4 watts per
64K bytes, for a total of maybe a hundred watts) would be unlikely to
be significant on the Shuttle, whose entire power consumption
obviously dwarfs that of the core memory.  The size factor is likewise
minor.  128K bytes of core fits in the same space as 256K bytes of
semiconductor memory, about 12"x12"x.7".  Highly compact versions of
both are probably comperably smaller.  The main (as opposed to minor)
advantages of semiconductor memory which have aqccounted for its
widespread commercial use are speed and especially cost.
	I feel that the general robustness of core recommends it for
use aboard the shuttle.
	Similarly, I see a lot of advantages to a slow computer,
provided it can carry the thinking load comfortably and that software
techniques that reduce reliability aren't made necessary by the need
to shave cycles.  Slower machines tend to be more gremlen-free, noise
tolerant, and easier to service in the field (they don't have things
like asynchronous logic or pipelining that make servicing by slowing
down the clock infeasable).

	Merely because some subsystem is part of a high-technology
enterprise doesn't mean that every component has to be the latest and
greatest and sexiest.  If the shuttle has doors between compartments,
I would hope the designers would resist the temptation to use a fancy
electronic latch rather than a doorknob (unless, of course, doorknobs
are a problem in weightless environments).  An example of a case where
the latest-and-greatest syndrome made trouble, rather analogous to the
case at hand, is the new M-1 tank Chrystler is building.  They are
having extreme trouble making their gas turbine engine perform "per
spec".  The gas turbine seems to have no tangible advantage over the
Diesel tank engines, which have been in use for decades - I suspect it
was just felt that the use of a Diesel on a high-tech tank would be
embarassing, and Chrystler needed something to win the bid.  I suppose
there might be slight advantages to the turbine, but look what is
actually happening!  (There are funds in the tank project for
retreating to the Diesel if necessary.  This step is being
considered.)  This is in addition to the turbine's requirements for a
more expensive, more highly refined fuel that would be in short supply
under battle conditions.
	Use state of the art methods where necessary.  Otherwise, use
the best of what's available, even if it dates back to paleolithic
times.

	I hope this submission will stimulate some discussion.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 1981 00:52-EDT
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <dlw at MIT-AI>
Subject: Flight International
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Whatever "Flight International" is, they must have some pretty careless
or stupid reporter if this reporter actually thinks that the size
reduction will be achieved by using miniaturized electronics.  That is
pretty silly all right.


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #116    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 116

Today's Topics:
			     Shuttle Computer
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: KWH@MIT-AI
Date: 05/09/81 11:28:06
Subject: Shuttle Computer

KWH@MIT-AI 05/09/81 11:28:06 Re: Shuttle Computer
To: KWH at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC

Perhaps core is a wiser choice for the shuttle- But from all I've heard
NASA doesn't know that!  They plan to replace it with semi-conductor
memory by '84-'85.  The trick is that they probably ordered the machine in
'72-'74, and have had to see technology pass them on the exponential rise
it's still on- And they couldn't catch up so as to save money- They
couldn't afford it.  NASA decided to climb the stairs to the stars, and
just about when they were a quarter of the way there, the elevator reached
the lobby-

			Wishing for ten digit space budgets,

						Ken Haase



------------------------------

Date: 09 May 1981 2027-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n048  1315  09 May 81
BC-EUROSPACE
By ROBERT REINHOLD
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    WASHINGTON - It was a determined and angry Vittorio Manno who
stepped into the chill Paris morning and headed for Orly airport on
the Monday after President Reagan announced his budget revisions in
February. He boarded the Concorde for New York, where he was met by
two Americans - high officials of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration - in a private Air France lounge at Kennedy Airport.
    The message Dr. Manno brought from Paris, where he is deputy science
director of the 11-nation European Space Agency, was filled with
injured indignation:
    His agency had already spent $100 million fulfilling its commitment
under the International Solar Polar Mission, a joint venture to fly
twin spacecraft, one European, one American, over opposite poles of
the sun the sun to make scientific observations. And now, as the
Reagan administration trimmed its budget, the United States was
abruptly and unilaterally planning to kill its satellite,
    Foreign governments, particularly close American allies like France,
Germany and Japan, have reacted with dismay and anger over the Reagan
administration's decision to cut back or terminate American
participation in a variety of international scientific and
technological programs. The cutbacks have produced such a stormy
reaction that the administration has given signs of bending.
Congress,too, may seek to restore at least some of the programs.
    Ironically, it has been the American government in the past that has
pressed its allies, particularly Japan - to pay a greater share of
the cost of basic research and has offered multilateral and bilateral
cooperation with American scientists to encourage such research. Now
that these countries are finally pouring substantial new funds into
research, they are startled to see the United States march off in
another direction.
    ''We prefer to cooperate with the United States for political
reasons,'' said Jean-Pierre Fouquet, the space attache at the French
Scientific Mission in Washington. ''We worked hard for this. Our only
alternative is to say to the Soviet Union, 'Are you ready to
cooperate with us?' ''
    Fouquet said that 90 percent of French-American cooperation in space
would be lost if the solar mission, so designed that without the
American spacecraft the scientific value of the European satellite
will be greatly diminished, and a joint gamma-ray astronomy project
were dropped, leaving dozens of French scientists in the lurch.
    What dismays the foreigners is not just the budget cuts - they
expect priorities to shift with presidents - but the way they were
imposed. ''We believe the American government is dealing with its
economic problems correctly, but we had a memorandum of
understanding,'' said Roland Hofmann, science counselor at the Swiss
Embassy here, speaking of the solar mission. ''Can we breach
memorandums from day to day? It was a little astonishing.''
    Such has been the international uproar that the administration is
moving behind the scenes to smooth ruffled feathers, possibly by
restoring some of the jeopardized efforts. At the State Department, a
special interagency committee to study the problems, both in
diplomatic and scientific terms, is being formed by Under Secretary
James L. Buckley.
    Moreover, Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. sent a sharply
worded letter last month to David M. Stockman, director of the Office
of Management and Budget, over the solar mission, as well as several
other international scientific efforts. He acted after 11 European
nations jointly delivered an unusually blunt ''aide-memoire''
declaring that a unilateral breach of the solar agreement ''might
result in a loss of confidence in the U.S. as the major partner in
international space activities.''
    ''It is expected you treat partners a little differently than we
have,'' said a well-placed State Department official, who attributed
the situation to budget office people with no experience in
international affairs. The Reagan administration forbade government
departments from discussing pending budget cuts until they were
publicly announced.
    The budget office has not yet responded to Haig's letter. But Edwin
L. Dale Jr., its spokesman, said the office recognized it had
inadvertently created a diplomatic problem in the budget rush. He
added that its ''emerging position'' was that the administration
would not supply more money to the various agencies involved, but
that they were ''welcome'' to fulfill their international commitments
if they could find the money from other parts of their programs.
    The United States maintains scores of scientific agreements with
foreign governments for cooperation in nuclear physics, environmental
protection, health and other matters. The value of some of these
arrangements, which were devised more for diplomatic than scientific
reasons, has often been questioned by American scientists.
    However, the agreements with the more technologically advanced
countries have come to be valued by both American and foreign
scientists as a means of reducing the soaring cost of scientific
research by sharing expensive accelerators, spacecraft, telescopes
and special laboratory equipment. Much of the collaboration would
continue under the Reagan budget plan, and even those efforts in
jeopardy may yet be restored by Congress.
    
nyt-05-09-81 1612edt
***************

n070  1635  09 May 81
BC-EUROSPACE Addatend
NYT WASHINGTON: by Congress.
    In addition to the solar mission, some of the threatened projects
are:
    -A $1.4 billion synthetic fuels collaboration project to have been
shared among the United States, Japan and Germany. The Japanese, who
had gone to extraordinary lengths to appropriate their $275 million
share, are said to be particularly distressed.
    -American participation in the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis, a ''research center'' set up at American behest a
decade ago in Laxenburg, Austria, to bring Eastern and Western
scholars together to study global energy, food, natural resources and
other problem areas. The Reagan plan would cancel U.S. dues, which
would be $3 million in 1982. ''The spectacle of the U.S. welshing on
its commitment to this institute and leaving the Soviet Union in the
delighted position of being able to discredit us for bad faith is
appalling,'' said William D. Carey, executive officer of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. An administration
official, however, said the institute's work was most useful to
planned economies like that of the Soviet Union.
    -U.S. contributions to all international scientific organizations.
The chief casualty would be the International Council of Scientific
Unions, an umbrella group embracing 17 international scientific
unions and the national academies of 65 countries.
    -Bilateral agreements between the National Science Foundation and 25
countries would have to be scaled down because the agency's
international budget would be cut from $16.6 million to $10.6 million
in 1982. Much of the loss would be absorbed by deep cuts in
collaboration with Soviet scientists, imposed for political and not
budgetary reasons.
    But according to Dr. Harvey A. Averch, the foundation's assistant
director for scientific, technological and international affairs, the
cuts would also compel substantial retrenchment in cooperation with
Japan, France and other allies. For example, the Japanese program,
under which the United States has supplied about $1 million a year
for 50 or so projects in earthquake, biomedical, energy and other
research, would have to be limited to about 35 projects.
    ''They see a reduction and they see an expression of U.S. policy,''
said Averch. ''Even the slightest expression of change brings serious
questions.''
    Probably nothing has caused as many questions as the solar mission.
Under the original plan NASA would have launched the two satellites
from the space shuttle and the two craft, simultaneously gathering
solar data, would have performed 96 American and 83 European solar
experiments at angles from which the star has never been observed.
    But NASA, facing severe cuts in its space science budget for years
to come, told the European Space Agency it would still launch the
European satellite but would have to cancel its own. The Europeans
said this would make 70 percent of the experiments pointless.
    An extraordinary lobbying campaign followed. Eric Quistgaard,
director general of the European Space Agency, flew to Washington and
met with top officials at NASA, the State Department, the budget
office and with key congressmen. Out of that came a signal that the
American government would entertain a proposal to restore a less
expensive version of the project.
    The Europeans' response was ingenious: They would sell NASA a
duplicate of their own solar polar satellite for a fixed price of $40
million, a full $100 million less than the one NASA was going to buy
from TRW, an American company. The Europeans would absorb any cost
overrun beyond inflation; moreover, the plan required no additional
funds in the 1982 fiscal year, with the launch now delayed until
1986. This plan, the Europeans said, would save 80 to 90 percent of
the experiments.
    The European proposal is under review now by the Office of
Management and Budget and is said to stand a good chance. In its
haste to revise the Carter budget, the administration clearly
underestimated the strength of foreign interest in scientific
collaboration with the United States and appears to be having second
thoughts. ''We had to come up with a budget very rapidly,'' said one
science official. ''We'll do the best we can to pick up the pieces
now.''
    Another government science official said the allies' concern about
science, not always manifest in the past, was ''very attractive.''
But many scientific leaders here fear the episode may have
permanently undermined international faith in the United States as a
reliable world science leader.
    
nyt-05-09-81 1931edt
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-May-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #117    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 117

Today's Topics:
				Computers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 May 1981 01:32-EDT
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW at MIT-AI>
Subject: Computers
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

If you think space shuttle computers are strange, look at the computer
in the phone company's ESS-1 electronic switching system.  It is
extremely weird and uses technologies that you have probably never heard
of for memory.  I do not remember the details; what I remember (from an
MIT course I took four years ago) is that they work that way because
they are concerned with reliability rather than accuracy.  In a
university computer, it is acceptable if the machine crashes for a few
hours every day (people DO buy systems that have this property, and so
it is considered acceptable, whether we like it or not), but it is
unacceptable if it gets the wrong answer for multiplications very
occasionally.  With an ESS, it's OK if it connects you to the wrong
phone occasionally (the user will just assume that he misdialed), but it
MUST stay up very reliabily.  The space shuttle is somewhere in between
these goals, and so it has different requirements than your average
lab computer.  This should and does affect the choice of hardware.


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #118    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:
	    At last, an astronaut who talks to the press!!   
	       View from the North - Canadians on Space    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 May 1981 0938-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: At last, an astronaut who talks to the press!!   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

    LAS CRUCES, N.M. (AP) - Astronaut John Young says space shuttle
flights will aid the fight against world hunger by helping scientists
conduct aerial searches for arable land, minerals and oil deposits.
    ''I've heard people say, 'Why don't we spend the money for the space
shuttle on fighting world hunger?''' Young said Monday. ''That's a
real noble thing to say, but it's like a farmer when he eats his seed
corn - he'll do well this winter, but when it comes time to plant
again, he'll be in trouble.''
    Young and Robert Crippen, who flew the shuttle Columbia on its
maiden trip around the earth, were in New Mexico to visit workers at
the White Sands Missile Range, whose Northrup Strip served as the main
alternate landing site during the shuttle flight last month. The site
wasn't used.
    Today the astronauts were to visit the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration's White Sands test facility, Holloman Air Force
Base in nearby Alamogordo and meet with employees who worked on the
shuttle flight.
    Speaking in Las Cruces on Monday, Young said future Americans will
be better able to appreciate the flight of Columbia. ''They'll
appreciate it a lot more then than they do now,'' Young said.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 1981 0942-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: View from the North - Canadians on Space    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n554  0529  12 May 81
BC-SPACE-05-12
    By Edmund Gress
    (c) 1981 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)
    
    OTTAWA-Canada is taking the lead in shaping major policy on Outer
Space in the United Nations.
    Ranking government diplomats, fresh from the recently concluded 20th
session of the UN Legal Subcommittee on Outer Space in Geneva, are
focusing on two controversial issues.
    One issue resulted from the disintegration of Cosmos 954, a Soviet
military surveillance satellite, over hundreds of square miles of
Canada's Northwest Territories three years ago. The Canadians have
introduced a series of far-reaching draft principles designed to
protect against a repetition of such disasters. The legislation was
introduced in the Legal and the Scientific subcommittees.
    The second issue deals with Canada's contention that the world
should have an accord governing reception of international television
programming by direct broadcast satellite. The United States strongly
opposes such an agreement. Key officials here say that Canada will
push for such an agreement, with or without the United States, at the
June sessison of the 53-nation Outer Space Comnmittee in New York.
    Canadian officials say that the current rules of international law
don't protect UN member states against radiation hazards of
satellites that could fall accidentally anywhere across the globe. In
a recent statement, the government said that the ''states that do not
benefit directly from the use of nuclear power sources in Outer Space
should not bear the risk of radiation exposure created by their use.''
    Canada is seeking to protect not only its own interests, but the
welfare of the emerging Third World bloc. Because Third World
countries could not afford satellites, Canada is convinced that the
United States and the Soviet Union must bear full responsibility for
future actions in Outer Space.
    The Canadian proposal regarding the deployment of nuclear power
reactors in Outer Space embraces the following:
    -Each launching state, at least one month prior to the launching,
should provide the United Nations with information relating to
generic design, safety tests conducted, basic orbital parameters, and
primary and backup devices systems and procedures.
    -Once the launching state can reasonably predict where a nuclear
reactor will re-enter the earth's atmosphere, the United Nations
should be given a timetable of the satellite's re-entry, along with
an appraisal of the consequences of the re-entry and additional
information on search and recovery of the nuclear power source.
    -Radiation exposure for inviduals and populations should not exceed
the levels recommended by the International Commission on
Radiological Protection. If the orbiting space object falls outside
the territory of the country that launched it, there should be no
radiation exposure to individuals or the environment.
    This principle was inspired by the significant radiation fallout of
Cosmos 954. Scores of U.S. Air Force and Army personnel worked with
members of the Canadian armed forces for several months to remove the
radioactive debris. Canada and the Soviet Union recently signed an
agreement whereby the Kremlin will pay Canada $3 million (Canadian)
for the cleanup.
    -If it is not possible to prevent release of nuclear radiation under
re-entry conditions, the satellite should be put on an orbit high
enough to allow radioactive materials to decay before re-entering the
earth's atmosphere.
    These and other projected concepts of the Canadian government on
peaceful uses of Outer Space will be discussed at the June conclave
of the UN Outer Space Committee and in ensuing sessions of both the
Legal and Scientific Subcommittees. A quick accord is not expected
but officials think a beginning has been made.
    The Canadian government also is determined to end the international
squabbling on direct television broadcasting. This would allow
citizens of any nation to use satellite ''dishes'' to pick up signals
enabling them to view foreign television programs. This is now
possible in parts of Canada.
    The Canadian government has shut down commercial enterprises
pirating signals from communications satellites and re-transmitting
them for profit. But ot has not fined or threatened to arrest
individuals living in remote areas and capturing satellite signals
for American TV in their homes.
    The sticking point is that the United States demands that any
forthcoming consensus within the Outer Space Committee guarantee the
free flow of information, and that no nation could arbitrarily deny
its citizens the right to view foreign television programs.
    Moscow rejects this principle and the United States refuses to
budge. Canadian official say the United States is ignoring the
reality of technical requirements. The International
Telecommunication Union rules permit any nation the right to spurn
reception of television content of other countries. The Kremlin could
simply refuse to make reception dishes available to Soviet consumers.
    In private discussions, Canadian officials say a decision should be
made now and that it will side with the Third World nations on the
issue when the Outer Space Committee convenes.
    Till now, all decisions in the committee have been sanctioned by
consensus. But the tradition could be broken if the United States
insists on the provision of free dissemination of all international
television content.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-May-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #119    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 119

Today's Topics:
		    What happened to the NASA Budget?
			  Digest or Direct Mail?
		    Space bug bites construction firms
		      News of the Flying Brickyard 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  13 May 1981 10:51 edt
From:  Janofsky.Tipi at MIT-Multics (Bill Janofsky)
Subject:  What happened to the NASA Budget?
To:  SPACE at MIT-MC

The Tuesday issue of the Boston Globe carried an LA Times article about
the NASA budget and its impact on the Shuttle schedule.  The article
indicates that NASA is taking a $600 million cut in its budget and that
this will result in a cutback in Shuttle launches.  Other possible
problems may also reduce Shuttle launches.  For example, the article
mentions that turn-around time is more likely to be 6 weeks to 2 months
rather than the predicted 3 weeks.

My question is: WHAT HAPPENED?  Have I missed something since Regan
announced the $250 million cut in NASA funds?  Did the Congressional
budget resolution actually increase the White House's cutback or was
this another of Stockman savings?  Or are the facts in the article
wrong?
		Bill J.

------------------------------

Date:  13 May 1981 11:01 edt
From:  Janofsky.Tipi at MIT-Multics (Bill Janofsky)
Subject:  Digest or Direct Mail?
To:  SPACE at MIT-MC

Does anyone else feel that SPACE should return to direct mail rather
than its current digest form?
		Bill J.

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 1981 1357-EDT (Wednesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Space bug bites construction firms
Message-Id: <13May81 135758 DS30@CMU-10A>

From Engineering News Record, May 7, 1981:
 
    Buoyed by the spectacular success of the first space shuttle mission,
    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is preparing for the 
    next major milestone in space exploitation:  building huge platforms--
    both manned and unmanned--that will remain in space and be resupplied
    by a fleet of shuttles.  Unless companies in the construction
    industry concede opportunities to aerospace firms, they will find a
    cosmic market for design, construction and program management
    services.

    Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, for one, is not about to concede.  It has
    been contemplating the challenge since 1977.  Donald G. Hervey,
    projects manager for marine engineering, envisions the company having its
    own equipment spread in the sky "just as we have our fleet of construction
    vehicles working in the ocean."  He recalls that several years ago an
    aerospace executive remarked that his company "wanted to be the B&R of
    space construction."  Hervey's reply:  "We intend for Brown & Root to
    be the Brown & Root of space construction.  We like the number one role
    we have.

    <<< Many paragraphs about construction & materials processing in space >>>

    A civil engineer who is more aggressive in the field is Thomas C. Taylor.
    He left Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., Omaha, two years ago to establish a
    Los Angeles-based consulting practice primarily concerned with "the
    conceptual end of aerospace construction in orbit."  His small firm--
    Taylor & Associates Inc.--has centered its interest on having the
    shuttle carry its huge liquid fuel tank into space for reuse, rather than
    discarding it to burn up in the atmosphere.  His major client is
    Martin Marietta Aerospace, New Orleans.  [Not too surprising.]

    Taylor observes:  "The aerospace industry is unlike the construction
    industry in that it does not have long-range plans.  There is no cost
    consciousness as there is in the construction business, working within
    budgets and trying to look for least expensive solutions to the problems.
    When I was working on Alaska's North Slope, the oil companies did not ask
    truck manufacturers to do the construction work just because they built
    the vehicles that hauled the material.  Aerospace companies should not
    be doing all of the construction just because they built the orbiter
    that transports the materials."

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 1981 1326-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: News of the Flying Brickyard 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

    SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - A space agency official says the
protective tiles on the shuttle spacecraft Columbia received more than
400 ''nicks and dings'' during the April 12 launch.
    ''The tiles performed outstandingly well,'' Thomas L. Moser, chief
of the Johnson Space Center structural design section, said Tuesday.
    The Columbia has more than 31,000 tiles glued to its skin to protect
the craft from the heat of re-entry.
    Just one tile was lost, and Moser said that was probably caused
because the 8-inch square tile was cut in nine parts to conform to the
rounded surface to which it was bonded.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #120    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 120

Today's Topics:
			   marks on the shuttle
	 More Anchovies in Orbit [Tax on pizza or NASA-spinoffs?]
			 Voting results so far   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 May 1981 09:08:36-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: marks on the shuttle

   I have not been able to find any pre-launch photographs or any
post-landing explanation for the irregular black circle on the
left side of the shuttle nose just behind the squared-off section
of black tiles running back from the front tip of the vehicle.
Any remarks, guesses, ideas?

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 1981 18:44-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: More Anchovies in Orbit [Tax on pizza or NASA-spinoffs?]
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

That's a great idea! 1% retail surcharge on Teflon, integrated
circuits, space food sticks (now renamed, sigh), Tang, etc.
all funneled directly into NASA's budget.  Sounds like it's
reasonable, after all if they were a private company they'd have
patent rights on everything and be getting much more than 1%.
They're gov't sponsored, but 1% into space with full accounting sounds
worth trying.

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 1981 0109-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Voting results so far   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The current tallies I have recieved as of 1AM PDT are:  3 votes for
retaining Digest format and 1 vote to direct mailing.  This does not
include Bill's vote which presumably makes the totals 3 to 2.  More
results as they come in.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #121    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 121

Today's Topics:
			 STS-2 launch date set   
			 New Distribution Option 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 May 1981 1142-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: STS-2 launch date set   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a099  0830  15 May 81
PM-Space Shuttle,140
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Space agency officials reported today that the
space shuttle Columbia came through its maiden flight in great shape
and set Sept. 30 as the date for its second orbital trip.
    ''The orbiter really came back in beautiful condition,'' John
Presnell, a shuttle project manager, told a news conference at Cape
Canaveral, Fla., which was relayed to reporters here.
    Presnell said the launch date for the second flight was set
following a complete inspection and assessment of damage incurred by
Columbia on its 2 1/4-day flight, which ended April 14.
    Astronauts John Young and Robert Crippen piloted Columbia to a
perfect landing on a desert runway at Edwards Air Force Base in
California. The spaceship was returned to the Cape Canaveral launch
site on April 28, riding piggy-back on a modified Boeing 747 jetliner.
    
ap-ny-05-15 1128EDT
***************



------------------------------

Date: 16 May 1981 0012-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: New Distribution Option 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The voting is now running something like 10:1 in favor of the digest format.
Some people were surprisingly vehement.  Bill Janofsky suggested that some
people could get the messages as they come in and everyone else would get the
Digest like before.  This is really easy to do so I have set it up so that
Bill and anyone else who wants to get the messages directly can do so.  Let me
know if you want to be moved (or added if you really like to get lots of mail)
to this other distribution list.  Note that the people on this list will get
a little more crap than normally "hits the wires".  That is to say that requests
to be added to the list etc. that I normally filter out will got to you anyway.
This has not been a problem lately.

Another thing that occurs to me is that it would be pretty easy to mail just
the first few lines of the digest to another sublist of people.  This would
basically be the hearer (with volume number) and the table of contents.  This
way people who just want to keep in touch but don't have much time for the
longer digests would normally not be bothered unless something particular
caught their eye.  I am not sure how useful this would be but let me know what
your thoughts on this are.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #122    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:
		[MORGENSTERN: Summer Position & Workshop]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 May 1981 1731-EDT
From: DREIFUS at RUTGERS (Hank Dreifus)
Subject: [MORGENSTERN: Summer Position & Workshop]
To: space at MIT-MC

Date: 11 May 1981 1850-EDT
From: MORGENSTERN
Subject: Summer Position & Workshop
To: bboard

A special  summer workshop  is  being organized  to assist  NASA  in
assessing  the  role   of  advanced  computer   technology  in   the
exploration and utilization  of space.   The study  team will  break
into subgroups initially and then come together for the  development
of a final report.  Duration: June 1 (or 8th) to August 14, 1981.

Specific expertise  is  sought in  information  systems,  artificial
intelligence, and other areas of computer science, automation, large
scale systems  theory,  and advanced  aerospace  concepts.   Typical
problems and  topics  to  be  addressed  include:  fully  autonomous
systems; the role of computer  science in planning, monitoring,  and
controlling  space  operations;   terrestrial  and   non-terrestrial
information  systems;   relationships  of   humans  to   intelligent
machines, etc.  A location near the  mouth of the Chesapeake Bay  is
planned as the study site.

For more information, contact Matthew Morgenstern @Rutgers.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #123    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 123

Today's Topics:
		    chemistry of the shuttle boosters 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 May 1981 1245-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: chemistry of the shuttle boosters 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

   CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS for 4/27/81 describes the assembly
of the shuttle's solid-fuel boosters:

"...Although such motors had never before been used to propel
humans into space, the solid propellant they burn is no
experimental concoction; it's been thoroughly tested in previous
programs and proven highly reliable.
   "The propellant consist of the following: 16% powdered aluminum
(fuel), about 70% ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer), about 0.17%
iron oxide powder (catalyst), 12% polybutadiene-acrylic
acid-acrylonitrile (PBAN) terpolymer (binder), and 2% liquid epoxy
resin (curing agent). Each booster is loaded with more than a
million lb. of this solid propellant.
   "The formula is prepared in 7000-lb batches at a remote complex
near Brigham City, Utah, operated by Thiokol Corp.'s Wasatch
division. There, workers clothed in protective garb use a giant
mixing bowl that holds 600 gal. of the brew. In the first step, the
aluminum power, PBAN polymer, and iron oxide powder are mixed in
the bowl. Then the epoxy curing agent is added without mixing so
as to delay the start of the curing reaction. The bowl containing
this premix is then transported by trailer to another building,
where the hazardous oxidizing agent (ammonium perchlorate) is
blended in by remote control.
   "The mixing bowl is transported to another site where the
propellant is poured into casting segments which eventually are
assembled into the boosters. Each booster is built from four such
propellant segments assembled in a reusable steel casing. At this
stage, the propellant mixture resemble warm, creamy peanut
butter---but its color is an unappetizing gray. It takes 20 hours
to fill one casting segment. Afterward, the mixture is cured at 135
degrees F for four days. This step converts the "peanut butter"
into a brick-colored material that looks and feels like a
hard-rubber typewriter eraser."

Take that, basement bombers!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #124    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
			      solid boosters
	       Administration space policy forming - maybe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 May 1981 at 1301-PDT
From: Andrew Knutsen <knutsen at SRI-UNIX>
To: space at MC
Subject: solid boosters
Sender: knutsen at Sri-Unix

	What I wonder about sometimes is what the effect of all that
aluminum gas is on the atmosphere is. Has an environmental impact
report or some such ever been done on the STS? Wouldnt it be great
if the environmentalists and anti-technologists got a handle on the
shuttle? Horrors. Apparently (from a passing mention in a magazine
talking about what all the engineers being drained out of Detroit are
doing) development is being done on new, more efficient fuels too.
	Remember that aurora display, or noctilucent clouds or whatever,
the night after the launch? What if it happens again (tho I doubt it...
the winds blow the wrong way)?


------------------------------

Date: 20 May 1981 1508-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
From: Rod Brooks <ROD at SU-AI>
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Administration space policy forming - maybe.
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a223  1330  20 May 81
AM-Astronauts-Congress, Bjt,520
Urge Congress to Explore 'Horizons We Can't Imagine'
By HOWARD BENEDICT
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Declaring ''the dream is alive,'' the
just-decorated space shuttle astronauts stormed Capitol Hill on
Wednesday to urge that the nation use its new rocketship to build a
large orbiting station and ''to open horizons we can't imagine yet.''
    America's newest space heroes, John Young and Bob Crippen, received
an enthusiastic welcome as they prowled the halls of Congress,
stopping by offices, eating lunch with senators and testifying before
a committee which accorded them a standing ovation.
    Their arm-twisting came amid indications the Reagan administration
has begun to consider a new space policy that could include the
orbital station the astronauts seek.
    ''Building a manned station is the next logical step if this nation
is to remain first in space,'' Crippen told the House Committee on
Science and Technology. ''It is needed as an operations center for
continued exploration and exploitation of space.
    ''The shuttle gives us this capability, not only to build a station
but to open horizons we can't imagine yet,'' he said. ''But we've go
to start now, because it takes 10 years to develop something like
that.''
    ''NASA has 22,000 fine minds that need to be stimulated,'' Young
told the committee. ''I recommend that we put a space station up there
and challenge those minds to develop the new technologies that will
make that station work for people on Earth.''
    Young and Crippen warmed up the committee and a standing-room-only
crowd with a film showing highlights of their flawless flight last
month aboard the first of the reflyable shuttles, the Columbia.
    ''The dream is alive,'' Young said as the film showed Columbia
landing safely on a California desert. ''I can assure you that all the
people in NASA are going to keep that dream alive. If they don't, I
guarantee that Crip and I will be bothering them.''
    The committee members stood and applauded.
    ''I don't remember anyone ever being treated this nicely by this
committee,'' said the chairman, Rep. Don Fuqua, D-Fla.
    ''I can assure you, you can look forward to this committee's
support,''said Rep. Hamilton Fish, Jr., R-N.Y.
    The reception was as enthusiastic at a luncheon attended by members
of the Senate. Its host was Sen. Harrison Schmitt, R-N.M., a former
astronaut and chairman of the space subcommittee.
    Schmitt has urged President Reagan to take advantage of the momentum
generated by Columbia's flight to establish a new policy on space
exploration. He believes the space station should be the next step,
and said Reagan has indicated an interest in such as station as an
operations center for military and scientific activities.
    ''The administration is starting to think about what that policy
should be,'' the senator said. ''Just this week, some members of the
administration met with our committee people to talk about it.''
    Reagan has said he is a strong backer of the space shuttle program,
and spoke glowingly of its potential Tuesday when he pinned medals on
Young and Crippen at a White House ceremony.
    ''Their deeds,'' he said, ''reminded us that we as a free people can
accomplish whatever we set out to do. Nothing binds our abilities
except our expectations, and given that, the farthest star is within
our reach.''
    
ap-ny-05-20 1623EDT
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #125    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:
		   Aurora display after shuttle launch
			 Confusion of Authorship 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1981 1033-EDT (Thursday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Aurora display after shuttle launch
Message-Id: <21May81 103356 DS30@CMU-10A>

A day before the shuttle launch, a sounding rocket was launched from
Wallops Island, VA, with a load of chemicals to spread around the
ionosphere.  The idea was to make the Earth's magnetic lines visible,
for an experiment unrelated to the shuttle.  Maybe that is what you
saw.

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 1981 0211-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Confusion of Authorship 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Due to a foul up on my part the message describing the construction of the
solid fuel boosters looked as if it had come from me.  It didn't, it came
courtesy of Chip Hitchcock (cjh@cca-unix).  Sorry for the confusion.
	-Ted Anderson

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #126    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 126

Today's Topics:
	       Administration space policy forming - maybe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 May 1981 02:46-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Administration space policy forming - maybe.
To: OTA at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I spent the week in Washington including at White HOuse, NASA
Hq, and House Office buildings. The account of Crippin and
Young's reception is a good one but a bit incomplete.
	What I don't know is what horrid offense I committed
THIS time that causes BB messages about me; and I guess I have a
simple remedy to that.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #127    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:
			     Budget for NASA
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 May 1981 22:32-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Budget for NASA
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

I'm usually wary of discussions about how much we've gained or lost
with respect to an arbitrary starting point ("save 400 dollars on this
dishwasher", "NASA budget slashed by 619 million dollars in next two
years") without reference to the absolute starting or ending point
("this dishwasher now costs only $1500, reduced from the ridiculous $1900",
"NASA budget was 12,256 million dollars and is now 11,637 million dollars
for two years 1981,82").  So I called Paul McCloskey's office and had
them send me a copy of the proposed NASA budget summary.  I got it yesterday
and am looking at it now (3 pages).  Here's the overall monetary amounts,
a comparison between what Carter planned for 1981 and 1982 and the changes
Reagan, staunch supporter of space, has proposed.

		(BUDGET AUTHORITY IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
		January budget (Carter)   Change   Amended budget (Reagan)
		<1981> <1982>		<1981> <1982>		<1981> <1982>
Space Transp.	 2,627  3,273		   +52   -168		 2,679  3,105
Space Science	   562    727		   -24   -173		   538    584
Space/Teres App.   354    473		   -22   -100		   332    373
Aeronautics	   276    324		    -4    -59		   272    265
Other(support...)1,715  1,895		   -17   -104		 1,698  1,791
    Total NASA	 5,534  6,722		   -15   -604		 5,519  6,118

In quick summary, not a lot is cut out of this year's program, but next
year's is getting a LOT of trimming, but even so will be bigger than
this year's budget.  The overall question of course isn't how much was
trimmed, rather are these new totals enough to finance everything that
we think is urgent to do these two years?  I'll compare these totals
with what I get by adding up the proposals in the joint proposal
that Pournelle worked on, but I'd like a more informed opinion on
this question, from somebody who knows how much all the other stuff
like satellite tracking will cost, so we'll be sure we can not only
fund our favorite programs but have an operational NASA also.

P.s. I found it absurd that half the time the shuttle was out of
radio contact with NASA headquarters because it wasn't within sight of
a ground station.  When are we going to have a space-based communication
system so we have 100% contact with satellites such as the shuttle??

Oh, if anybody finds a typographical error in my budget summary,
please report the error (i.e. if you got the same hardcopy I got
and see I've typed one of the numbers wrong).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #128    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:
			 Salyut 6 to be vacated  
		       Shuttle communications: TDRS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 May 1981 1154-PDT
From: Rod Brooks <ROD at SU-AI>
Subject: Salyut 6 to be vacated  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a058  0436  25 May 81
    MOSCOW (AP) - Cosmonauts Vladimir Kovalyonok and Viktor Savinykh
will return to Earth Tuesday after 76 days aboard the orbiting Salyut
6 space station, the Soviet news agency Tass reported today.
    ''They have fully carried out their program for research and
experiments aboard the scientific station Salyut 6 and will return to
Earth tomorrow,'' Tass said.
    Kovalyonok and Savynykh rocketed into orbit on March 12 in a Soyus
T-4 space capsule, and have hosted two visiting crews aboard the space
lab.
    The latest visitors, Romanian cosmonaut Dumitru Prunariu and his
Soviet mission commander Leonid Popov, returned to Earth last Friday
after a week-long flight to the 3 1/2-year-old station.

P.S. Anybody know how many missions that makes for Popov?

------------------------------

Date: 25-May-81 19:20:33 PDT (Monday)
From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Shuttle communications: TDRS
To: Space @ MC
Reply-To: Hamilton.ES
cc: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>, Hamilton.ES

In fact there is a communications satellite program which will provide the
sort of continuous shuttle communications that REM describes.  I believe
it's called Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS), and like so many
things, it's behind schedule.  My understanding is that it won't be
operational for about two more years.

--Bruce

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-May-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #129    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 129

Today's Topics:
				  Salyut
				  TDRSS
				  Masses
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 May 1981 1030-PDT
From: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE
Subject: Salyut
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE

Does anybody know what they're doing up in that space station?  Are
they taking pictures out the window? Doing materials processing?
Playing poker?
-------

------------------------------

From: DLW@MIT-AI
Date: 05/26/81 17:03:13
Subject: TDRSS

DLW@MIT-AI 05/26/81 17:03:13 Re: TDRSS
To: space at MIT-MC
According to NASA's literature, the Tracking and Data Relay Sattelite
System "will make its maiden flight aboard a Shuttle inthe early
1980's".  I don't know what they've been saying recently about the
schedule.  There will be two sattelites, spaced approximately 130
degrees apart at longitude 171 degrees west (southwest of Hawaii) and
longitude 41 degrees west (northeast corner of Brazil).  The ground
station will be in White Sands, New Mexico.  Sattelites and ground
stations will be owned by Western Union, with NASA leasing services for
a 10-year period.  There will be a third sattelite in orbit as a spare
(half way between the other two), and a fourth spare on the ground.
They will be the largest telecommunications sattelites ever deployed,
massing 5000 lbs and measuring 56 feet.  The shuttle takes them up
to 200 KM (125 miles), and then an inertial upper stage developed
by the Air Force takes them up to geostationary orbit.  The system
will be able to track up to 24 low-orbital spacecraft at once;
total information rate is 300 megabits per second.  TRW is the major
contractor for the sattelite and Harris Electonic Systems Division for
the antennas and ground station.  Sattelite lifetime is 10 years.


------------------------------

From: DLW@MIT-AI
Date: 05/26/81 17:12:11
Subject: Masses

DLW@MIT-AI 05/26/81 17:12:11 Re: Masses
To: space at MIT-MC
In reply to ICL.REDFORD's question (sorry I took so long):

The orbiter's mass is 68,000 KG.
The Orbiter's payload capacity is 29,500 KG.
The External Tank's mass, empty, is  35,425 KG.
Themass of the propellant in the  External Tank's is 719,122 KG.
The mass of one Solid Rocket Booster is 87,550 KG;
fuel for one SRB is 502,125 KG.


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-May-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #130    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 130

Today's Topics:
			 Soviets retire Salyut-6 
		 Continuing discoveries about Saturn    
		 Soviets suspend manned space flight    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 May 1981 0901-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Soviets retire Salyut-6 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a272  1726  26 May 81
AM-Cosmonauts,240
Mission Last In Series
    MOSCOW (AP) - Two Soviet cosmonauts returned to Earth on Tuesday
after 75 days in space, and official reports indicated their flight
was the last of a 44-month series of missions aboard the Salyut-6
space station.
    Cosmonauts Vladimir Kovalyonok and Viktor Savinykh, who boarded the
space lab one day after their launch March 12, were in good condition
after successfully completing their flight program, the Soviet news
agency Tass said.
    They landed in Soviet Central Asia, 80 miles east of the city of
Dzhezkazgan in their T-4 space capsule.
    Shortly after the landing, a Soviet announcement noted the
''successful completion of the program of prolonged flights by Soviet
cosmonauts on board the orbital complex'' and of the current series
of flights by cosmonauts from other communist countries.
    The announcement did not say what the next stage in the Soviet space
program might be, but many specialists expect a new space laboratory
to be launched soon. French and Indian cosmonauts are preparing to
fly into space with Soviet cosmonauts in the future.
    Soyuz 6 was launched Sept. 29, 1977, and visited by 16 crews who
manned it for 676 days, Tass said. There were 34 linkups with manned
and unmanned craft over the three-year, eight-month period, and three
space walks from the lab, Tass said.
    Cosmonauts from Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, Bulgaria,
Hungary, Vietnam, Cuba, Mongolia and Romania have flown on Soviet
flights.
    
ap-ny-05-26 2016EDT
***************



------------------------------

Date: 27 May 1981 0901-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Continuing discoveries about Saturn    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n062  1524  26 May 81
BC-SATURN
(Newhouse 012)
By PATRICK YOUNG
Newhouse News Service
    BALTIMORE - Saturn's rings are apparently the remains of ancient
moons pulverized by comets some 4 billion years ago, and not, as long
thought, dust from the solar system's birth that never formed moons
around the planet.
    That is one of the new conclusions from the continuing analyses of
data returned by the Voyager 1 spacecraft when it flew past Saturn
last November.
    It is based in part on the cratering found on a number of Saturn's
moons, which becomes greater the closer a moon is to the planet. This
suggests that objects closer in suffered even more hits.
    Many planetary scientists believe the comets formed in the area of
Jupiter and Saturn. Most were spun far out into the solar system,
into a region called ''Oort's Cloud,'' by gravitational interactions
with the two giant planets.
    Eugene Shoemaker of the U.S. Geological Survey said at an American
Geophysical Union meeting that comets may have bombarded three or
more moons orbiting close to Saturn, initating a complex series of
events that produced the rings.
    Richard Terrile of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory said the great
variation in the sizes of materials that make up the rings support
the destruction theory.
    Before Voyager, he said, the rings were believed made of lumps
''snowball-size to desk-size.'' But Voyager has changed that view.
    ''We go all the way from dust to mountain-size objects hidden in the
rings,'' Terrile said.
    Among other new findings reported during a press confernce at the
meeting:
    - Liquid helium falls deep inside the planet's atmosphere. This
''rain'' releases energy as it falls, which apparently explains a
mystery that has troubled scientists.
    ''Saturn didn't seem to fit our preconceived notions of how the
solar system formed,'' said Andrew Ingersoll of the California
Institute of Technology. ''There was too much heat stored there and
coming out. These helium raindrops appear to explain the extra
energy.''
    - Saturn's moon Mimas may have been broken apart in a collision with
some other object and then pulled back together again by gravity.
    - Lightning-like electrical discharges occur every 10 hours and 10
minutes in Saturn's ''B'' ring. They appear to result from the
interaction of a tiny moonlet with an electrostatic field in the ring.
    - Complex molecules - including some types of hydrocarbons and some
chemicals needed to make proteins - probably form on Titan, the
largest of Saturn's moons.
    Titan's atmosphere is largely nitrogen with some methane, a mixture
believed similar to that of Earth early in its history. ''On Titan
the environment is favorable to building up complex molecules,'' said
Darrell Strobel of the Naval Research Laboratory.
    But life itself is unlikely to have ever appeared, for Titan's
temperature hovers around minus-294 degrees Fahrenheit.
    ''Many of us studying the solar system feel there is nothing
significantly unusual about our solar system,'' Ingersoll said, a
belief reinforced by the Saturn findings.
    ''The inference is that there could be lots of other solar systems
out there.''
    And that suggests the possiblity of intelligent life elsewhere in
the universe. SG END YOUNG
    
nyt-05-26-81 1817edt
***************



------------------------------

Date: 27 May 1981 0937-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Soviets suspend manned space flight    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a075  0603  27 May 81
PM-Soviet Space,130
Suspending Manned Shots
    MOSCOW (AP) - The Soviet Union has suspended manned shots while its
experts decide on the next step in exploring space, scientists said
today.
    ''In coming months, there will be no such flights. After we analyze
everything, we will adopt a decision,'' said Alexei Yeliseyev, head
of space mission control.
    ''We must now analyze all work done in the preceding five years,
then determine what should be done,'' Yeliseyev added at a press
conference on the last of nine missions in the Intercosmos series.
    He made it clear there were no immediate plans to replace the
orbiting space station, Salyut-6, with a newer version of the space
lab, Salyut-7.
    ''Salyut-6 will continue for a long time to be able to accept crews
on board,'' Yeliseyev said. ''It has been switched to pilotless mode
and will continue carrying out a number of scientific experiments.''
    
ap-ny-05-27 0859EDT
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-May-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #131    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 131

Today's Topics:
		      TDRSS satellite cost problems
	    New Branch of the Arms Services: Space Command?  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 May 1981 1202-EDT (Thursday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  TDRSS satellite cost problems
Message-Id: <28May81 120227 DS30@CMU-10A>

From Aviation Week & Space Technology, May 18, 1981:

Tracking and data relay satellite system (TDRSS) will overrun projected
costs by $500 million - $1 billion, and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration should liquidate or substantially restructure the
joint federal/commercial contractual arrangement that has resulted in
this cost growth, according to an internal NASA report prepared by the
agency's Inspector General's office.

TDRSS operations are to be an integral part of space shuttle flight
activities, providing space-based data relay for information gathered
by the shuttle or unmanned free-flying spacecraft...

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 1981 0148-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: New Branch of the Arms Services: Space Command?  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

In an article called "Beam Weapons Technology Expanding" by Clarence Robinson
on page 40 of the May 25th Aviation Week I found this paragraph in a group
of paragraphs explaining why "Recent events have combined to focus attention on
space defense:"

 . . .

   Serious consideration within the Defense Dept. and Congress of establishment
of a new branch of the armed services for space warfare, probably Space Command.
The reasoning is that the Air Force and the Navy are seeking to avoid developing
space weaponry for defense and that any effort in this area takes away from
total obligational authority for other planned strategic weapon systems.  There
also is some concern over roles and missions between the Army and Air Force as
to where the Army's ballistic missile defense mission stops and the USAF's
traditional space defense mission begins.

 . . .

The special report in that issue of Aviation Week is Beam weapon technology.
They don't say anything about X-Ray beam weapons though.

	Space Cadets front and center,
	Ted



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Jun-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #132    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:
			Anti-technology & Shuttle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 June 1981 19:06-EDT
From: Stephen G. Rowley <SGR at MIT-MC>
Subject: Anti-technology & Shuttle.
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

The following appeared in the letters column of Time magazine, May 11, 1981.
Note that it does NOT represent my own opinion; in fact, it is quite
the opposite.  However, I thought it might interest you to see how the
other side "thinks":

             "Granted, the Columbia is a yummy public relations cream
      puff.  But I am not cheering.  What good is space wizardry if our 
      home planet becomes unfit for life-- animal, vegetable or human?

     	"Most of us do not relish the idea of colonizing outer space.
     Indeed, we have no moral right to do so-- at least not until we 
     clean up our act on this planet."

		-- Jean Allan, Boston

I can se at least 5 "logical" (if the word applies) flaws here.  One 
lollipop is hereby offered to anyone who can find 6.

	-steve

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Jun-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #133    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 133

Today's Topics:
			       shuttle cuts
			      geosynch slots
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  2 Jun 1981 2035-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
Subject: shuttle cuts
To: space at MIT-MC

!a278  1841  02 Jun 81
AM-Space Shuttle,310
Budget Cuts Force Shuttle Cuts
By WARREN E. LEARY
AP Science Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of space shuttle flights scheduled for
the next four years has been cut 30 percent for budgetary and
technical reasons, the national space agency said Tuesday.
    The previously announced program of 48 flights through 1985 for the
reuseable spaceship will be stretched out, with some missions
canceled and others delayed.
    The early schedule called for four test flights, including the one
completed this spring, and 44 operational missions during the period.
    Dr. Stanley Weiss, associate administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, said the new schedule calls for
only 30 operational missions, which he termed ''a substantial
decrease.''
    Weiss said the rescheduling is necessary primarily for two reasons:
tight budgets that keep the space agency from flying some of its
science missions, and delays in constructing and delivery of a new,
lightweight external fuel tank for the shuttle.
    NASA officials met last week with private contractors and government
agencies who have scheduled payloads on the four planned shuttles and
informed them of their revised flight times.
    Weiss said some users are disturbed by the delays, but most were
understanding and ''pretty upbeat'' about the shuttle program.
    Users who have bought cargo space on the shuttle have been
frustrated because of previous delays. Some have opted to contract for
old, expendable rockets as a backup to launch their satellites in
case the shuttle wasn't ready to fly when they were.
    The successful, near-perfect flight of the shuttle Columbia in April
has restored confidence in the program and showed that the space
glider would perform as expected, Weiss said.
    ''At the meeting, there was much less talk about expendable
vehicles,'' Weiss told a news briefing. ''One concern has been
dissipated - whether the vehicle (shuttle) will fly.''
    Even so, he said, some users may decide to cancel their shuttle
reservations and fly earlier on another rocket.
    
ap-ny-06-02 2132EDT
**********
-------

------------------------------

Date:  2 Jun 1981 2038-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
Subject: geosynch slots
To: space at MIT-MC

!a283  1917  02 Jun 81
AM-Space Real Estate,300
Strip of Space Called 'Hottest Real Estate On Earth'
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - A narrow corridor 22,300 miles up in the
air is being billed by space officials as the ''hottest real estate
on Earth.''
    It's an area where satellites can ''hover'' in orbit above a fixed
location on the globe. The demand for the parking space in the heavens
is booming, and experts predict the traffic jam will get worse before
the end of the decade.
    Of the 1,101 satellites now in orbit, 110 of them are in
''geosynchronous'' orbit - orbiting at a speed that keeps them at a
fixed point above the equator. The rest travel at lower altitudes,
circling the Earth up to 16 times per day.
    Only 10 satellites were in geosynchronous orbit in 1968, and the
count is expected to rise to 300 in the next four years with the
advent of the space shuttle program. During their first 40 missions,
space shuttles will carry at least 11 geosynchronous satellites into
orbit.
    Theoretically, an almost unlimited number of satellites could occupy
the flyway without colliding. But because signals from communication
satellites can jam each other, they must be spaced 1,500 miles apart
to avoid interference.
    In the space above the Western Hemisphere, there are 21 prime spots
for communication satellites. Twelve already have been taken by the
United States and Canada, and the remainder probably will be filled by
the end of the decade.
    The United States has eight of these slots, and the Federal
Communications Commissions has authorized the use of six more
locations by the mid-1980s. Still more satellites are awaiting
approval by the FCC.
    Although Latin American countries haven't launched any satellites
yet, they are staking out their shares of the corridor. Following the
advice of the State Department, the FCC has decided to leave three
spots open for Latin American countries.
    
ap-ny-06-02 2208EDT
**********
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Jun-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #134    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 134

Today's Topics:
		      Private enterprise in space  
			      Ooops......   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 1981 0941-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Private enterprise in space  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

NASA Scoffs at Private Launch Plan
By ANDREW M. WILLIAMS
Associated Press Writer
    HOUSTON (AP) - NASA officials say spaceflight should remain a
function of the government, and they scoff at plans by a group of
Texas businessmen to launch satellites for profit.
    Space Services Inc., a new Houston-based company, says it can launch
satellites for a fraction of NASA's price and hopes to become the
first private U.S. business in the market by late 1982.
    ''Are they aware that I've got a staff of several thousand people
working in a program that launched 10 flights last year?'' said Peter
Eaton, NASA's program director for Delta Launch Vehicles.
    But Gary Hudson, whose GCH Inc. has spent the last six months
building the first rocket for Space Services, said Eaton's problem is
that he is part of the government bureaucracy.
    ''All bureaucrats require staffs of several thousand people,'' he
said. ''The Thor rockets were launched (by the space agency in the
late 1950s) by eight people from a transporter. Why does Eaton need
600 to 1,000 people now to do the same thing?''
    David Small, space specialist for the State Department's legal
office, said the government has not even decided yet whether it will
approve the venture. ''I'm just not ready to make a formal judgment,''
Small said.
    Eaton asked, ''If they launch their rocket and it comes down in the
middle of downtown wherever, who's going to pay the damages?''
    Space Services President David Hannah said the company carries $25
million in flight insurance.
    ''The cutting edge of all this is whether the government will say,
'The government's got to do this kind of work,' '' he said. ''If it
does, then I think we really have given ourselves over to a
socialistic form of government.''
    A sub-orbital test flight of the 53-foot-long rocket is set for next
month, said Charles Chafer, Space Services Vice President, with a
splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico. ''If this is successful I think we
will have established our credibility,'' said Hannah. The rocket will
be launched from Matagorda Island on the Texas coast.
    Hudson said Space Services would put a satellite such as those used
in weather observation into a 100-mile-high orbit for about $2
million.
    He predicted a $5-million pricetag for sending communications
satellites into geosynchronous orbit, in which the payload turns with
the Earth and constantly remains about 23,000 miles above the same
point, appearing stationary to people on the ground.
    NASA officials said it costs about $22 million for the lower orbit
and $25 million for the higher one using Delta rockets carrying
2,400-pound payloads comparable to those forseen by Space Services.
    
------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 1981 0942-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Ooops......   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Space Officials Blame Paper Clip for Shuttle Problem
    SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - Space officials blame a paper clip for
one of the minor problems encountered during the first flight of the
space shuttle Columbia in April.
    Joseph E. Mechelay, mission evaluation manager, said Wednesday that
an overlooked paper clip began floating around inside a power supply
box, causing a short. When a circuit breaker failed to correct the
problem, a switch was made to a backup supply.
    Mechelay said the paper clip was one of 52 minor anomalies during
the 54 1/2-hour flight. He said all are so minor they would not affect
the second launch now scheduled for Sept. 30.
    ''If we had to today, we could make up our minds on all of the tiny
fixes and go fly,'' he said.
    
------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Jun-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #135    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 135

Today's Topics:
		     re: private enterprise in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1981 1101-PDT
From: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE
Subject: re: private enterprise in space
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE

Sounds like a scam to me. 
1) A 53 foot rocket isn't very big
2) there's a big difference between a sub-orbital and an orbital
   flight.  V2s were sub-orbital, but you couldn't launch satellites
   with them.
3) a 100 mile high orbit is pretty low.
4) what is GCH Inc. and what do they know about building rockets?
5) who will do the tracking, telemetry and control?  Need stations 
  around the world for that.
6) and last, a rocket crashing into a city could do a hell of a lot
  more than 25 million dollars damage.  That's just a couple of people killed
  at present lawsuit rates.

Overall it sounds to me like these people have been reading too much
early Heinlein.  Private enterprise probably will run the launch side of
the space effort some day, but it won't be by a couple of Texan Wright
brothers working in their back yard.  That's what folks thought in the
fifties, but now we're twenty four years into the space age.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Jun-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #136    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 136

Today's Topics:
		       Private enterprise in space
				Ariane   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 June 1981 1233-EDT (Monday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Private enterprise in space
Message-Id: <15Jun81 123359 DS30@CMU-10A>

What's with OTRAG (Orbital Transport und Raketen Aktiengesellschaft) these
days?  And what was their price supposed to be to orbit a payload?

[There is an extensive article in this month's OMNI on OTRAG and their
many problems (and they aren't all technical problems).  --TAW]

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 1981 1624-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Ariane   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

BC-ROCKET 
(ScienceTimes)
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    KOUROU, French Guiana - The Europeans who came here centuries ago in
search of the fabled El Dorado only to find an unconquerable ''green
hell'' have returned with a new dream of conquest, a dream they are
pursuing vigorously in an incongruous setting on the Atlantic coast
within sight of the infamous Devil's Island and downriver from jungle
people barely out of the Stone Age.
    For this remote enclave of South America is the launching base from
which Western Europeans, through an 11-nation collaborative venture,
plan to establish an independent place for themselves in space. And
this time they fully expect the vision to become reality, thus
elevating Western Europe to the status of a space-launching power
along with the United States and the Soviet Union as well as, to a
lesser degree, China, Japan and India.
    The plan will be put to a critical test Friday when the
European-built Ariane rocket, modified after a failure last year, is
scheduled to blast off with two satellites bound for high orbit.
    Flight engineers at the Guiana Space Center successfully completed a
countdown rehearsal Monday morning, and officials of the European
space agency expressed confidence that the rocket and satellites were
ready to fly. The real 29-hour countdown is set to begin early
Thursday morning.
    This will be the third of four planned test flights of Ariane, but
the first one to carry major satellites. They are the 1,550-pound
Meteosat 2, a weather satellite for the European Space Agency, and a
1,475-pound experimental communications satellite built by India and
called Apple.
    The first launching of an Ariane, in December 1979, was successful,
though it bore only a dummy payload. The second Ariane disintegrated
after liftoff in May, 1980. Subsequent modifications and retestings
resulted in an eight-month delay in the project.
    Just as the future of the American space program seemed to ride on
the success of the space shuttle Columbia last April, the Europeans
feel pressure and some apprehension as they prepare for the next
Ariane launching.
    ''This is more critical to us, psychologically, than a normal
launch,'' Max Hauzeur, a Belgian who is the European Space Agency
representative at Kourou, said in an interview. ''A failure would
have impact on future schedules, and that could mean economic and
political problems for Ariane.''
    Though new for the Europeans, in concept and technology Ariane is
anything but the last word in space vehicles. The 155-foot-high
rocket is considered conventional (in contrast to the re-usable
shuttle design). Each of its three stages, burning standard liquid
fuels, fires and then is jettisoned to destruction. About 16 minutes
after liftoff, only the payload survives, in orbit around the earth.
    The current Arianes have a guaranteed 3,740-pound payload lift
capability. But Raymond M. Orye, head of the Ariane program office,
said Sunday that plans have been approved for second-and
third-generation Arianes, which would be upgraded in power to carry
4,400 pounds and 5,324 pounds, respectively. The space shuttle
Columbia should eventually deliver 65,000 pounds in low earth orbit.
    The Europeans have won commitments from a number of commercial and
foreign customers to launch their telecommunications satellites by
Ariane. This was business that in the past would have presumably gone
to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Orye said that
Ariane is largely booked up till 1985.
    France is footing 63 percent of the bill for Ariane, which entitles
it to a proportionate share of the industrial contracts for its
construction. The prime contractor is the French company
Aerospatiale. The other 10 members of the European agency are
Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland and West Germany.
    More than French chauvinism led to the selection of French Guiana, a
former colony but now a full-fledged department of France, as
Ariane's launching site. The French had been forced in the 1960s to
move their operations here from North Africa after Algeria became
independent, but they eventually might have come here anyway, for
Kourou lies only five and a half degrees north of the equator and
faces a broad expanse of open ocean to the north and east.
    These attributes give Kourou advantages over Cape Canaveral in
Florida, Vandenberg Air Force Base in California or any of the Soviet
launching bases.
    Being close to the equator, for example, rockets taking off here can
deliver 17 percent more payload into the high equatorial orbit
favored for communications and many other satellites. Rockets from
Cape Canaveral, at 28 degrees north latitude, must expend more energy
getting up and then over to an equatorial orbit. Besides, the surface
velocity of the rotating earth is greater near the equator and so
imparts some extra free energy to a departing rocket, as a faster
merry-go-round would to a person jumping off. Both of the satellites
to be launched Friday will be aimed for the so-called geostationary
orbit above the equator. At an altitude of 22,300 miles above the
equator, a satellite travels as fast as the earth rotates and thus
remains over a single point on earth at all times.
    With open water to the north, moreover, Kourou is ideal for
launching vehicles into south-to-north orbits across the poles. Polar
orbits are favored for satellites that need to cover all the earth
repeatedly, as in the case of earth survey, navigation, military
surveillance and some scientific and meteorological satellites.
    The Europeans plan their polar-orbit launching from here in July,
1982. It will be an astronomy satellite called Exosat.
    Still, with all the good reasons to have a launching base in a place
otherwise bypassed by the space age, coming through the jungle to
find a modern space center takes visitors by surprise. Kourou is 40
miles northwest of Cayenne, the capital, on wild savanna spreading in
from the ocean a few miles until it hits a forbidding green wall of
jungle growth.
    Robert Rennie, an engineer at Grumman Aerospace Corp. in Bethpage,
N.Y., related his first impression of a visit here recently.
    ''You land at Cayenne, a real tropical backwater, and you drive past
shacks, through the jungle and past a Foreign Legion outpost,'' he
said. ''You may stop and dine on something crocodile and then,
bang-oh, there you are in front of the clean room, and it's every bit
as good as the facilities at Canaveral.''
    To approach the space center the only other way - there is only one
paved highway in French Guiana, from Cayenne through Kourou to St.
Laurent on the Suriname border - can be even more startling. Coming
from Suriname, to the northwest, one crosses the muddy Maroni River,
where piranha lurk, in a motorized dugout canoe and hires a car or
takes a taxi for a 125-mile ride on a rough paved road that seems to
be losing its battle to co-exist with the jungle and almost certainly
could lead only to ''Green Mansions.''
    But, suddenly, the road emerges from the jungle, widens and passes
within a few hundred yards of the Ariane launching pad, a sprinkling
of antennas and spherical water and fuel tanks and a mound of grassy
earth covering the underground launching control center. The rocket
remains protected in a buff-and-red metal enclosure until 20 minutes
before liftoff, when the metal structure is rolled away by rails.
    More modern buildings come into view, the offices and technical
facilities, the power plant and the ''clean room'' where the
satellites are checked out in a carefully controlled environment.
    Most of the town of Kourou, with a population of 7,000, is equally
modern, having been built in the last few years by the French space
agency for the 650 space center employees and their families. There
are orderly rows of low white bungalows and small apartment
buildings, all air-conditioned against the brutal humidity, and
outside nearly every door, it seems, is a small white Renault with
the letters CNES, for the French space agency, stenciled on the side.
Two hotels and additional apartments, also owned by the space agency,
are available for engineers on temporary assignments; some 300 are
here now to service Ariane and its two satellites.
    Kourou was a sort of company town once before, back when the three
offshore islands, including Devil's, were a legendary penal colony of
no return. What is now the old part of Kourou served as a logistics
base for the prison, and out at the mouth of the muddy Kourou River
stands a stone tower once used by signalmen to communicate with the
islands eight miles across the water. France closed the prison after
World War II.
    The space center looks back to Europe for its logistic support. Some
engineers envy the industrial and technical support so readily
available adjacent to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. But John
Aasted, an Englishman who is program manager for Meteosat, said that
Guiana ''is not that remote, only nine hours by air from Paris with
three flights a week.''
    A Boeing 747 cargo plane was chartered in April to haul Meteosat
here with all the necessary tools and check-out instruments. All the
components of Ariane were first assembled and inspected at facilities
near Paris. They were then dismantled and shipped by barge down the
Seine to Le Havre and sent by ship to Cayenne. They arrived here at
the end of April. With experience and some round-the-clock work,
Hauzeur said, the time required to prepare an Ariane for launching
here has been reduced from 53 to 33 working days.
    Bernard Schneider, project manager for the Ariane nose fairing,
built by the Swiss company Contraves to protect the payloads during
liftoff, studied at Stanford University and worked for an American
aerospace company. He regarded the engineering operations at the
Kennedy Space Center as ''more professional'' than at Kourou.
    ''Here, we're still learning, doing things more up to the last
minute,'' Schneider said. ''We really need a success this week to
give us the confidence we need for the things we plan to do in the
future.''
    



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Jun-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #137    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 137

Today's Topics:
		       Private enterprise in space
			 SPACE Digest V1 #135    
		      Private enterprise in space  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 June 1981 03:53-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Private enterprise in space
To: David.Smith at CMU-10A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Business Week has also an article on GCH which is Gary Hudson
and Anne Roebke, who make cheap rockets for free enterprise
space stuff and apparently are doing pretty well at it...

------------------------------

Date: 17 June 1981 04:10-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPACE Digest V1 #135    
To: OTA at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

WRONG!

Gary Hudson knows perhaps a few things beyond freshman level. Do you?

------------------------------

Date: 17 June 1981 04:15-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Private enterprise in space  
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I can well believe that Peter Eaton has a staff of several
thousand people who did a total of ten launces last year.  I can
believe that Mr. Eaton believes he ought to have a staff of
several hundred thousand in order to do ONE launch...

But then he believes the US cannot get to the Moon in ten years
with present staff, too.

Ah, well...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Jun-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #138    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 138

Today's Topics:
		       SPACE [sic]  Digest V1 #135
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 June 1981 07:05-EDT
From: Gail Zacharias <GZ at MIT-MC>
Subject:   SPACE [sic]  Digest V1 #135
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE>
    To: OTA at SU-AI
    cc: SPACE at MC

    WRONG!

    Gary Hudson knows perhaps a few things beyond freshman level. Do you?

Let's get this mailing list out of the gutter. Immature ad hominem
"arguments" have no place here. In the future, please try to confine
such childish outbursts to inter-personal communication.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Jun-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #139    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 139

Today's Topics:
			 Ariane launch succeeds  
		     civvies vs military, Allan Bean
		       SPACE [sic]  Digest V1 #135
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 1981 1059-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Ariane launch succeeds  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a104  0935  19 Jun 81
PM-Ariane,110
Rocket Successful On Third Test
    PARIS (AP) - The third test launching of the European Ariane rocket
was completed successfully from the Kourou space center in French
Guyana today, French scientists reported.
    The three-stage rocket, though basically on a test flight, put into
orbit an Indian communications satellite and a European meterological
satellite, according to signals received at Kourou.
    The satellites went into geostationary orbit 23,000 miles high as
planned, according to signals received at the space base.
    The rocket, with which a consortium of European countries hopes to
win one-third of the space satellite business over the next decade, is
the third of four test missiles before it enters commercial service.
    
ap-ny-06-19 1229EDT
***************



------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 1981 at 1452-PDT
From: Andrew Knutsen <knutsen at SRI-UNIX>
To: space at MC
Subject: civvies vs military, Allan Bean
Sender: knutsen at SRI-Unix

!a024  0038  18 Jun 81
PM-Space Shuttle,460
Possible Conflicts Between Military, Civilian Use of Shuttle
By HOWARD BENEDICT
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Joint military and civilian use of the manned
space shuttle could create launch priority conflicts, and the two men
likely to head the space agency say they have asked the White House
for help in resolving them.
    James M. Beggs and Hans Mark told a Senate committee Wednesday that
they met last week with Richard V. Allen, President Reagan's national
security adviser, ''to set up the mechanics for dealing with this
problem.'' They provided no details.
    Reagan has nominated Beggs and Mark to be administrator and deputy
administrator, respectively, of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. They testified at their confirmation hearings before
the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
    Sen. Harrison Schmitt, R-N.M., a former astronaut who chaired the
session, called them an ''excellent team'' and predicted that the
committee would send their nominations to the full Senate.
    Beggs, 55, has been executive vice president of aerospace for
General Dynamics in St. Louis since 1954. Mark, 52, a physicist, has
been secretary of the Air Force since 1979. Both formerly served as
NASA officials.
    The Air Force plans to use NASA's space shuttle for several military
missions, most of them secret, and Mark as secretary has been
involved in that planning.
    Schmitt noted that the civilian and military space programs, until
now clearly separated, will be more integrated as both make use of the
shuttles. He asked if this posed a problem.
    ''In the beginning, when we have only a small number of shuttles, I
foresee there will be some troubles with respect to the adjudication
of disputes on flight priorities,'' Mark replied, indicating that a
military payload needed for national security might have to bump a
scientific or commercial payload.
    Of the 67 operational shuttle flights booked into early 1987, the
Air Force has contracted for 25 of them for Defense Department
missions - such as deploying reconnaissance and other military
satellites and for testing laser beams as killers of hostile
satellites and missiles.
    Several nations have purchased space on shuttle flights, mainly for
communications satellites, and a foreign policy issue might arise if
one of those missions is delayed to make way for an Air Force
payload.
    Mark said he hoped that eventually the nation will have a fleet of
10 shuttles to reduce the possibility of priority conflicts. Money
already is provided for four shuttles, and funds for an optional fifth
vehicle is in the proposed fiscal 1982 budget.
    The Air Force also is building its own shuttle launch facility at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., and a shuttle control center at
Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., but these won't be ready until 1984.
Until then, the military payloads will be launched from NASA's
facility at Cape Canaveral, Fla.
    
ap-ny-06-18 0327EDT
**********

!a061  0442  18 Jun 81
PM-Astronaut Resigns,240
Bean Leaving Astronaut Corps; Will Paint Moonscapes Instead
    HOUSTON (AP) - Alan L. Bean says he's through walking on the moon
and plans instead to devote himself to painting it.
    The 49-year-old Texan, the fourth man to walk on the lunar surface,
announced Wednesday that he is retiring after 18 years in the
astronaut corps.
    ''I am going to sit in front of my easel and become as fine a
painter of moonscapes as I can,'' Bean said.
    The idea of becoming a career artist ''did not just pop into my
head,'' said Bean, who began studying art while in the Navy in the
1950s. ''I've been doing more on weekends, going to museums and art
shows. I decided if I was going to try and make a contribution, I had
to start now.''
    He said no other artist has had a first-hand view of space.
    ''I could paint in general before I went to the moon, and took some
lessons from a couple of artists, but there is no one around who can
teach you to paint moonscapes,'' he said. ''The atmospherics and the
colors - mostly gray - are so different from what other artists have
experienced.''
    Bean was the lunar module pilot on Apollo 12, the second lunar
landing mission, in November 1969. He also commanded the 1973 Skylab 3
mission.
    He has spent more time in space - 1,671 hours, 45 minutes on the two
flights - than any other active U.S. astronaut.
    The resignation leaves John Young, the commander of the first space
shuttle flight in April, as the only active astronaut who has walked
on the moon.
    
ap-ny-06-18 0731EDT
**********




------------------------------

Date: 20 June 1981 06:43-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPACE [sic]  Digest V1 #135
To: GZ at MIT-MC
cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

1. My reply was to an unsupported ad hominem argument of its
own. A number of us have known Gary Hudson for a long time, and
while he may be crazy, he's not stupid.

2. Your manners are exceeded only by your testiness. What in the
devil do you EXPECT to have said to a message that invites such
replies? The original message had very little content, and
implied that Hudson knows nothing; a number of people in the
space community know better than that from experience; lengthy
replies take considerable time; and some of us have things to do
with it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Jun-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #140    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 140

Today's Topics:
			   recent pleasantries
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 1981 14:38:04-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: pourne at mit-mc
Subject: recent pleasantries
Cc: cjh at CCA-UNIX, gz at mit-mc, space at mit-mc

   I hesitate to say anything about this, since there's no reason to turn
SPACE into an argument over personalities. But it has been pointed out
elsewhere that electronic mail allows casual remarks a broader effect
than would be expected from traditional communications, so I'll say
some things that wouldn't be necessary had the original remarks been
passed in a narrower forum.
 -- I recall a number of the preceding remarks in this debate, but nothing
nearly as blunt or obnoxious as yours.
 -- The number of people in the SPACE mailing list who know Gary Hudson
is limited, particularly since many of us don't claim to be members of the
"space community".
 -- To say that a particular utterance "invites" public rude replies is to
ignore the respondant's absolute choice in what degree of heat to reply with,
as you have had demonstrated in the past.
 -- Many of us have things to do with our time, and accordingly elect not to
address many topics (when raised in these digests) at all rather than address
them with a misunderstandable superficiality; given the size of the audience,
this is commendable. You can always address a person privately if you are
offended by hir remarks.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Jun-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #141    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 141

Today's Topics:
			   Private space flight
		      Several details on Ariane    
			     enough already!
			     enough already!
			   recent pleasantries
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 June 1981 1327-EDT (Sunday)
From: Ramamoorthi.Bhaskar at CMU-10A
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Private space flight
CC: Ramamoorthi.Bhaskar at CMU-10A
Message-Id: <21Jun81 132730 RB01@CMU-10A>

		Fools rush in where angels fear to tread! I am going 
	to attempt to bring back the discussion to the very interesting 
	question of space flights by smaller organizations than NASA.
	Regardless of the merits of any particular entrepreneur, the question
	is probably both important and urgent.  I note the following:

		1. Many prophets have predicted that the space age
	will really come of age when decentralized space activity
	becomes a reality. My favorite is Freeman Dyson, in an Appendix
	to the proceedings of the Second Conference on CETI (ed. Sagan,
	MIT Press, 1973) and in his more recent autobiography, Disturbing
	The Universe.  There is some discussion about the merits of this
	idea when compared with the proposals of Gerard O'Neill.  I 
	remember the discussion as being chiefly economic.

		2. The pressing problem I think is the social psychological
	health of the species.  Not much is known about the "mentality"
	of humans that engage in large tasks that involve no communication
	with the society that spawns such endeavors but (perhaps) does not
	support them.


		3. Legal questions may dominate the public discussion. In
	particular, questions of national identity and legal liability
	will have to be discussed and solved. There are two subquestions
	that some reader may be able to illuminate for me:
			a. What were the laws in Britain around 1500
			   that governed continental exploration?

			b. What is the current state of international law 
			   about stateless persons?



	I have conducted a short library search on existing space law and
	have been unable to find any good pointers. Can anybody help?

	RB

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 1981 1321-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Several details on Ariane    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n046  1222  19 Jun 81
AM-ARIANE
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    KOUROU, French Guiana - Western Europe's Ariane rocket rose from its
jungle launching pad here Friday, the reverberations rolling across
the wild coastal savanna, and successfully boosted two satellites
into orbit.
    The performance of the 155-foot-tall rocket was reported to be
''perfectly normal,'' following a failure the last time it was
launched, and moved the 11-nation European Space Agency closer to
realizaing its goal of an independent and active space-launching
program. One more test flight is scheduled this November.
    ''This success is definite and absolute,'' Eric Quistgaard,
director-general of the European Space Agency, declared as the
cheering subsided in the control room at the Guiana Space Center.
''This proves to the world that Europe is in space for good.''
    Officials of the Ariane project said that a preliminary analysis of
the post-flight data confirmed that modifications made on the
three-stage rocket had eliminated the excessive combustion vibrations
that destroyed the last Ariane shortly after liftoff in May 1980. The
first test flight, in December 1979, was successful.
    The two spacecraft deployed by Ariane - a European weather satellite
and an experimental communications satellite built by India - were
also reported to be functioning normally.
    They were delivered into temporary elliptical orbits ranging in
altitude from 125 to 22,400 miles, almost exactly where they were
aimed. Later, they are to be shifted, through the firing of small
rockets, into their eventual positions about 22,000 miles above the
equator.
    The final countdown, or chronologie, as the French launching crew
calls it, was interrupted twice by technical problems, causing a
delay of one hour and 13 minutes in the liftoff.
    First, at 59 seconds before the originally scheduled liftoff time,
an illuminated display in the control room switched from green to
red. Computers controlling the final six minutes of the countdown had
detected extraordinary voltages in the third stage of the rocket and
shut down operations. The problem was traced to a momentary power
surge.
    After the countdown was recycled back to eight minutes prior to
liftoff, several more displays suddenly turned red. One of the two
radar tracking stations in the area reported a malfunction. The
countdown was halted again. Flight controllers grew anxious because
this is the rainy season and dark clouds were gathering.
    When it was decided to go ahead with only one of the radar stations
in full operation, the countdown resumed. At 9:33 a.m. (8:33 a.m. New
York time), the four engines of the first stage ignited in a burst of
orange flame.
    The rocket did not move. As planned, it remained fixed to the
launching pad three and a half seconds while the engines built up to
full thrust. Then the steel restraints were released and Ariane rose
slowly into the partly cloudy sky. At liftoff, the rocket and its
payload weighed 460,000 pounds, 90 percent of which was propellants.
    Unlike the spaceshuttle Columbia, Ariane is not a reusable launching
system. The first stage burned hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide for
two and a half minutes before shutting down and being jettisoned into
the Atlantic Ocean just off Kourou.
    The second stage, with a single engine burning the same propellants,
fired for two minutes and 15 seconds before it, too, was jettisoned.
    The final thrust into orbit was furnished by the third stage, with a
single engine burning the supercold liquid oxygen and hydrogen
propellants. It burned nine and a half minutes.
    During this time, the rapidly climbing Ariane moved out of the range
of the radar tracking stations at Kourou and a tracking camera based
on an offshore island next to the infamous Devil's Island, the former
penal colony. The next station to acquire and track Ariane was a
Brazilian antenna at Natal.
    Finally, Ariane's control passed to Ascension Island, in the South
Atlantic, where the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and
the Department of Defense operate an American tracking station. The
Europeans have an arrangement to use the station for Ariane
launchings.
    Tracking stations here, in Kenya and in Australia were monitoring
Meteosat, the 1,550-pound European weather satellite. It will take
about 30 days for the satellite to drift into position over the
Equator at zero degrees longitude, the prime Greenwich meridian.
Control is being maintained from the European Space Agency's
Operations Center in Darmstadt, West Germany.
    Meteosat 2 will replace Meteosat 1, launched in 1977 but now only
partly functional. The satellite will transmit images and other data
of weather conditions over the Atlantic Ocean, Europe and much of
Africa. Meteosat officials said that the satellite should be ready
for regular operation by the end of this year.
    India's 1,475-pound satellite, Apple, is expected to begin handling
telecommunications transmissions in 40 days from its eventual
position over the Equator at 102-degrees east longitude. Apple, the
first large satellite to be built by India, is being controlled from
India's launching center at Shriharikota, in Madras.
    After the two satellites were deployed in orbit, along with a small
engineering data module, the French National Center for Space
Studies, which operates the launching base for the European Space
Agency, announced: ''The mission was a total success.''
    Development of Ariane began in 1973 and is expected to cost $900
million through the first four test flights. The 11 nations in the
program, besides France, are Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Ireland,
Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and West Germany.
    
nyt-06-19-81 0323edt
***************



------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 1981 1358-PDT
From: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE
Subject: enough already!
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE

In one of his novels Greg Benford said that the passion in a debate was
inversely proportional to the amount of information involved.  Let's
try to calm this argument down by finding out some things.  Who is
Gary Hudson, and what is GCH Inc?  What kind of rockets is he building?
Why specifically does he think that he can build and launch large
rockets for far less than much larger and older institutions?
-------

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 1981 1358-PDT
From: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE
Subject: enough already!
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE

In one of his novels Greg Benford said that the passion in a debate was
inversely proportional to the amount of information involved.  Let's
try to calm this argument down by finding out some things.  Who is
Gary Hudson, and what is GCH Inc?  What kind of rockets is he building?
Why specifically does he think that he can build and launch large
rockets for far less than much larger and older institutions?
-------

------------------------------

Date: 22 June 1981 04:01-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: recent pleasantries
To: cjh at CCA-UNIX
cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, GZ at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

1. You have my apologies.
2.Gary Hudson remains someone worth listening to
3.please remove me from this mailing list

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Jun-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #142    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 142

Today's Topics:
			      info on Ariane
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  22 June 1981 10:57 edt
From:  York.Multics at MIT-Multics (William M. York)
Subject:  info on Ariane
To:  space at MIT-MC

Does anyone have a source of information on the European Ariane project
other than newswires?  I would like to know a few things, such as how
much does one Ariane launch cost (including the rocket itself)?  How
does this compare to a shuttle launch?  How long does it take them to
prepare a new rocket?  How many are being built, and how quickly?  Any
info would be appreciated.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Jun-81  0400	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #143    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 143

Today's Topics:
		    First natural laser discovered    
		      Hope for Halley intercept    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 1981 1252-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: First natural laser discovered    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

    Scientists at the Goddard Space Flight Center and the University of
Maryland have discovered in the cold upper atmosphere of Mars a
natural infrared laser. This is the first known occurrence of a
natural laser, they said, and represents ''a whole new class of
phenomena in planetary atmospheres.''
    In a report in the journal Science, the scientists said that the
total power output of the Mars laser exceeds one million megawatts,
equivalent to that generated by about 1,000 large hydroelectric power
plants. The Mars laser is in principle identical to the
carbon-dioxide lasers developed in the last two decades for a wide
variety of commercial, scientific and military uses.
    The discovery was made during observations of Mars with an infrared
spectrometer at the McMath Solar Telescope at Kitt Peak, Ariz. The
research team was led by Dr. Michael J. Mumma of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard center at Greenbelt,
Md.
    The thin atmosphere of Mars consists almost entirely of carbon
dioxide. According to Dr. Drake Deming, one of the Goddard
researchers, the carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere absorbs
sunlight and in this process collisions of molecules amplify the
energy levels until they reach a laser state. The word laser is an
acronym for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.



------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 1981 1714-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Hope for Halley intercept    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

House Votes To Keep Space Shot Alive
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The House voted Tuesday to cut money for the Space
Shuttle but decided to keep alive the option of a mission that would
intercept Halley's Comet with an unmanned space probe.
    To fail to keep a 1986 rendezvous in space with the comet would be
false economy, backers of the mission said, as the House approved a
$5-million installment toward the $30-million-plus space shot.
    The Reagan administration had declined to request funds for the
project, despite enthusism for it within the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. Critics claim the value of such an undertaking
would not justify its cost.
    At the same time, the House cut $60 million from the Reagan's
request for $2.19 billion for the Space Shuttle program.
    Both actions came as the House debated legislation authorizing $6.1
billion in NASA programs. The overall bill was approved by a 414-13
margin and sent to the Senate.
    The House decision to earmark $5 million for the Halley's Comet
project preserves the option for NASA even though the administration
did not request the project, backers said.
    Halley's Comet next approaches earth in 1986 on its 76-year
trajectory around the sun. The proposed intercept spacecraft, which
would be launched in 1985, would photograph the comet's icy core and
take samples of the gases and particles that surround it and make up
its long, wispy tail.
    ''If the United States does not undertake a Halley mission, we will
be conspicuous by our absence,'' said a report on the legislation by
the House Science and Technology Committee.
    The report noted that the European Space Agency, Japan and the
Soviet Union - in partnership with France and Germany - all plan to
investigate the comet.
    But, in floor debate, Rep. Harold C. Hollenbeck, R-N.J., the only
member to speak against the comet project, told colleagues: ''While we
would all like to see such a mission undertaken, the economic
realities of the time dictate against it.''
    
------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Jun-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #144    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 144

Today's Topics:
	    need convincing about Halley's comet mission?    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 1981 1606-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: need convincing about Halley's comet mission?    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Jerry Pournelle sent me a copy of his November ANALOG column, which is 
an argument about the importance of doing the Halley's comet mission.
Since it is kinda long and since most people on this list probably
don't need convincing on this point I am puting it in a file on SAIL in
the usual place.  The file is HALLEY.ALG[SPA,OTA] @ SAIL.  You can type
or FTP this file without an account.  If you have trouble getting it
from SAIL send me a note and I will mail it to you.  It is about 200
lines long.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Jul-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #145    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 145

Today's Topics:
			   Against the SPS    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 03 Jul 1981 1040-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Against the SPS    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Study Advises Against Satellite-to-Earth Energy System
By WARREN E. LEARY
AP Science Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The government should not try to develop a
satellite-to-Earth energy system for at least a decade because it
would cost too much, a National Academy of Sciences study says.
    The proposed system of giant solar satellites beaming power back to
Earth would be so large and costly that it may not be feasible, says
a report released Thursday by the academy's National Research
Council.
    ''Developing and building an SPS (satellite power system) on the
scale contemplated would be by far the largest, most costly, and most
complex undertaking - civil or military - ever attempted,'' the study
group said.
    The projected system would involve 60 satellites half the size of
Manhattan Island and corresponding receiving grids on earth each
measuring six miles by nine miles. Beams of microwave radiation would
transmit solar energy captured by the satellites to Earth.
    The study said building the satellites alone would require
spaceships with 13 times the cargo capacity of the present space
shuttle. One of those ships carrying 400 tons of cargo would have to
take off each day for 30 years just to supply building materials, it
continued.
    The report said a cautiously favorable Energy Department study of
the scheme last year greatly underestimated costs.
    That estimate of $1.3 trillion is ''two and a half times too low,
even in the most optimistic view,'' the research council said.
    Because of high costs and extensive technical problems, the new
study recommended against spending any research and development money
on it in the next decade.
    Instead, it suggested that federal agencies monitor relevant
technical developments during that time and report to Congress
periodically on useful advances that might apply.
    The Energy Department and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration so far have spent about $19.5 million researching the
concept, and proponents are asking for $30 million a year for further
research.
    The research council group, which included experts from
universities, government and industry, found no insurmountable
technical problems with the concept. But it said satellites compared
poorly on technical and economic grounds with other prospective energy
sources, such as breeder nuclear reactors and advanced coal burning.
    The solar satellite concept was created by Dr. Peter Glaser, a vice
president at Arthur D. Little, Inc., a Cambridge, Mass., consulting
firm. Glaser said he had not seen the new study and would reserve
comment on it.
    Fred Osborn, president of the Sunsat Energy Council, a group of
corporations and individuals lobbying for Glaser's idea, said he felt
that it was too soon to dismiss the satellite concept because of the
cost, since future technical advances would reduce the cost. ''The
costs are likely to plummet with new developments, but the cost of
fuel will keep going up and up,'' he said.
    



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Jul-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #146    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 146

Today's Topics:
			   Against the SPS    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 July 1981 20:44-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Against the SPS    
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Sending 400 tons per day for 30 years from the surface of the Earth
to build SPS is absurd.  It's a strawman!  What happened to the plan
for putting a mass-driver on the surface of the moon and using solar
energy to power it to simply toss all the materials from the moon?
We could send small pieces of equipment up to process the raw materials
into various pure materials usable for building larger equipment.
The larger equipment could then process 400 tons of moonrock a day
for 30 years to actually construct the SPS.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Jul-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #147    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 147

Today's Topics:
			     Against the SPS
		    The longest orbiting satellite?   
     Beggs and Lovelace exchanging positions at Gen. Dyn. (almost).  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 1981 10:45:33-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Against the SPS
Cc: cjh at CCA-UNIX

   I was originally under the impression, from what was said by people
like von Putkamer, that the mass of SPS was not going to be anywhere
near that great. However, he was definitely talking about bringing
everything from Earth; one of the slides showed a machine that would
take rolls of thin sheet-metal (fabricated and packed on Earth) and
form them into tubes which would be strong enough in [zero-]gravity.
The assumption that SPS would depend on quantities of moon rock has
been less than explicit in the more grandiose publicity of SPS
enthusiasts; seeing as the mass driver itself would take quite a
while to establish, I can see why. Furthermore, I can see severe
difficulties with having smelting and forging facilities in
[zero-]gravity at our present level of knowledge, and getting the
necessary equipment to and established on the moon would present
additional difficulties.
   In short, unless a far more active space program is taken as a given,
SPS looks like a loser. Granted, I'd like to see such a program, but
how likely is it?  Even serious business interest in space is pointed
more towards exotica than towards heavy industrial projects---not that
such projects are impossible; they just represent a greater degree of
dedication than it is curently reasonable to expect. It strikes me that
space enthusiasts are missing a bet here: instead of attempting to
influence the Legislative and Executive branches with letter-writing
campaigns (always a chancy business, when polls are readily available
to give a broader summary of public interests), we should be working
to whip up national enthusiasm, just as Kennedy did when he promised
a man on the moon by the end of the decade. That promise was a mistake
in the longer view, reaching as it did for a single spectacular rather
than building a solid foundation (consider how few SF writers before
Project Mercury envisioned a straight jump for the moon in place of
the establishment of a space station); avoiding that mistake while
building public interest would be difficult but is far more likely to
produce the desired results.

------------------------------

Date: 06 Jul 1981 2256-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: The longest orbiting satellite?   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n044  1148  06 Jul 81
BC-SCIENCE-WATCH (UNDATED)
(ScienceTimes)
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
		. . .
    American and Italian space officials are discussing plans for a
data-gathering capsule that would be towed by the space shuttle
through the uppermost fringes of the atmosphere on a tether line as
much as 60 miles long.
    The purpose would be to make observations in the region too high for
balloons and too deep into the atmosphere for satellites. The shuttle
would be high enough to remain in orbit but its tethered capsule
could be only 80 miles above the earth's surface.
    This is the region where various wavelengths of sunlight knock
electrons off atoms of the atmosphere, creating the electrified
layers of what is known as the ionosphere. These layers, under
circumstances that vary from day to night and under other influences,
bend radio waves back to earth, making possible communications beyond
the horizon.
    The chemistry of this region is also highly variable, but so far
only fleeting observations have been possible from soaring rockets.
    The Italians would build the capsule. The United States would
develop the apparatus to lower and hoist the capsule from within the
shuttle cargo bay. Joint discussions on the proposal were held on
June 17 and 18 at the Marshall Space Flight Center of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration in Huntsville, Ala.
    
nyt-07-06-81 1446edt
***************



------------------------------

Date: 06 Jul 1981 2258-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Beggs and Lovelace exchanging positions at Gen. Dyn. (almost).  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a234  1259  02 Jul 81
AM-Washington Briefs,390
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Alan M. Lovelace, acting administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, announced Thursday he
is leaving NASA July 11 to join General Dynamics as vice president for
science and engineering.
    Lovelace has been acting head of NASA since Jan. 20, when Robert
Frosch, appointed during the Carter administration, resigned that
post. Before that Lovelace was deputy administrator. He has been with
the agency since 1974.
    NASA's new chief, James M. Beggs, until recently was executive vice
president for aerospace for General Dynamics, which is based in St.
Louis. The Senate confirmed his nomination last week and he is to
start work July 7.
    President Reagan recently awarded Lovelace the Presidential
Citizen's Medal for his role in the development of the space shuttle.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Jul-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #148    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 148

Today's Topics:
		      Jeffersonian Territorialism  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 07 Jul 1981 1659-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Jeffersonian Territorialism  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I have heard that some L-5ers are pushing for a northwest ordinance
like act by Congress relating to the settlement of space.  Perhaps
the old northwest ordinance is still in effect and could be made to
apply?

Anyway, a couple of questions come to mind.  How would the bounds
of a territory be defined?  If it was a space colony like thing
would the borderds extend just to the pressure wall, or include some
space around it?  How much, 3 miles?  10?  250?  Also in the past
territories have always become states eventually.  How does this effect
things?  Does anyone know enough about space law or the northwest
ordinance to comment?



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Jul-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #149    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 149

Today's Topics:
			      defending NASA
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  8 Jul 1981 2138-EDT
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: defending NASA
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: king at RUTGERS

	I have been observing the (rather heated at times) dialog to
the effect that NASA is usind thousands of people to do the work of a
few dozen.  Before we ride NASA too hard, I submit that there is one
important point to keep in mind: NASA embraces the man-in-space
concept.  Its competitors' systems do not even approach being
"man-rated", making the systems simpler and making a lower level of
countdown-time checking acceptable.
	It may be that the future in space belongs to the unmanned,
but out experience with undersea exploitation teaches us that there is
almost certain to be a need for a human presence, especially when
fantastically expensive equipment (even more expensive when the cost
of putting it in place is considered) doesn't perform properly.  A lot
of effort was expended trying to make objects like oil platforms
automatic, but divers frequently have to gear up and research aimed at
making people able to dive ever deeper continues to be important.
	Yes, NASA appears clumsy, but I don't want to concede space
either to the Russians or to robots.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Jul-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #150    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 150

Today's Topics:
			   The Future of NASA 
			   Space Services Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 July 1981 12:13-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-AI>
To: space at MIT-MC, king at RUTGERS


The problem of thousands of people at NASA has several components.
The most serious problem, in my view, is that the entire agency
is still so mission oriented that it can't support R&D about its basic
problems, e.g., mission planning and operation.  The lack of basic
research facilities mens, in turn, that thee are no centers (except
some slots in JPL) where experts concerned with such matters can work.
NASA has acquired essentially no Ph. D's in computer science in a decade.

The need for human presence could be replaced in most instances
by human telepresence.  If NASA were not mucked up with the war between
men and robots, it would have done more research on highgrade
teleoperators.  There has been some piddling efforts at JPL and Marshall,
but nothing to write a progress report about.

Man belongs in space, to be sure, but there is no reason any
more why each man should need thousands of others for backup.
Or rather, there is -- because the proper research isn't being done.


------------------------------

Date: 09 Jul 1981 1007-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: The Future of NASA 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I can't say that I share KINGs impressions of strong anti-NASA feelings
here on the SPACE list, but I can comment on them.  

I am a little worried by the attitude of `NASA or nothing' demonstrated
in KINGs letter.  NASAs competency has been decreasing over the past decade
as the young enthusiasts of the 60's space program found that they could
get better jobs in private industry and there wasn't anything to do
at NASA anyway.  Those people were not replaced.  Almost a year ago,
I had a resonably extensive tour of NASA-Ames and found many programs
staffed with *very* overworked middle-aged loyalists, trying to hire
first-rate people at third-rate salaries.  NASA has had ten years to 
develop a bureaucratic overhead, and has unfortunately succeeded.

If NASA is to `regain its youth', it will need something to aim
for and money to hire good people.  It currently has neither.  It is
(perhaps) lucky that there exists a technological base that can allow
the development of space systems by smaller, less bureaucratic, groups.
Young companies always get by with less people because they *have* to.
To say that NASA is our only hope of getting into space is a little naive.
But it is our best hope, now, and, like a sick friend, needs our help
and support.  Not an acceptance of that sickness in the spirit of
`taking the good with the bad'.



------------------------------

Date: 09 Jul 1981 1149-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Space Services Inc.
To:   space at MIT-MC  


Caption of a picture off the AP photo wire:

COMPETITOR EMERGES

The first U.S. space rocket booster built by private enterprise
is lowered into a cradle at GCH Inc. in Sunnyvale, where it was
built for Space Services Inc. of Houston.  The rocket will be
test-fired in Texas later this month.  The firm hopes to compete
with NASA, placing communications satellites into Earth orbit
with the ``Percheron''.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Jul-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #151    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 151

Today's Topics:
		      Harris Poll on Space Shuttle 
			  NASA as a bureaucracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 09 Jul 1981 1510-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Harris Poll on Space Shuttle 
To:   space at MIT-MC  


From the June 15 issue of Aviation Week, various excerpts ('cause I don't want
to type it all in):

A national survey conducted by the Louis Harris & Associates polling 
organization shows that 63% of those surveyed believe the U.S. should
spend the several billion dollars necessary to develop full potential of
the space shuttle over the next 10 years.

``This current support for spending on the space program is even more
significant in view of the current overwhelming preference for cutting
federal spending,'' the Harris survey said. `` In a sample of this
size, one can say with 95% certainty that the results are within 
plus or minus three percentage points of what they would be if the entire
adult [U.S.] population had been polled.''

. . . . 

``Republicans want to spend more [on shuttle] by 71-26%, as do conservatives
by 66-30%.  The college educated public favor more spending on the shuttle
program by 71-26%.  Men support it by 76-21%.  In contrast, Democrats want
to increase spending by a much lower gap of 57-39%.  Liberals favor the program
by 57-41%.  Women back it by a narrower 52-43%. Blacks oppose the shuttle
program spending by a 53-45% margin.''

. . . . 

[The following is a table from the AWST article.  The following question was
asked of 1250 adults to provide the data for this table --TAW]

``It could cost the U.S. government several billion dollars to develop
the full potential of the shuttle over the next 10 years.  All in all,
do you feel this space program is worth it?''

[All numbers are percentages -- TAW]

Subgroup		Yes	No	Not sure
	
Men			76	21	3
College educated	71	26	3
Women			52	43	5
Blacks			45	53	4
Total			63	33	4



------------------------------

From: MIKLEV@MIT-AI
Date: 07/10/81 22:53:56
Subject: NASA as a bureaucracy

MIKLEV@MIT-AI 07/10/81 22:53:56 Re: NASA as a bureaucracy
To: space at MIT-MC
CC: MIKLEV at MIT-AI
It isn't riding NASA to point out that they have a heavy bureaucratic
overhead.  As a mature government bureaucracy, nothing else should be
expected.  They have two basic, unresolvable problems that Gary Hudson
will never have: having 535 members of a board of directors (Congress),
and having a standard bureaucratic "hidden agenda" of providing jobs
and status.  Recognize that and build around it, but don't ignore it
or pretend that it will go away.


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Jul-81  1717	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #152    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 152

Today's Topics:
		      Jeffersonian Territorialism  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 July 1981 23:05-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Jeffersonian Territorialism  
To: OTA at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think trying to make a space colony, especially one as far away as L-5,
into a state of the USA, would be a bad idea.  There's no way we can
force them to stay with us, and there's not much incentive.  I suggest
we just assume they'll become independent not only of us but of
Earth, and try to maintain friendly trade relations with them.  There's a
lot of stuff we can sell them (we have more people, and can make many more
types of things than a small colony could) in exchange for the bulk
energy and special products they make (ball bearings, pure drugs).
They will want the latest movies from Hollywood and the latest computer games
and all sorts of other things, just like a city here imports all sorts of
things from other cities near and far.  (How many products that you
consume or use were produced within a mile of your residence, even if
both a farm and a city are within a mile of you?)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Jul-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #153    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 153

Today's Topics:
			   Points of interest 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 1981 1046-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Points of interest 
To:   space at MIT-MC  


I spent most of Saturday (July 11) at a Space Week event in Berkeley.
(For anybody that doesn't know, this week (July 11-20, actually) is
``Space Week'').  The program consisted of a series of speakers on
various space-related topics.  The two most interesting things that I
found out were:

1) The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), a professional organization
of airline pilots, believe that *within 5 years* there will be a large
demand for commercial spacecraft pilots.  In accordance with this, they
are getting together with United Airlines and setting up a training
program.  There was much talk of acquiring spacecraft training simulators
and expertise from NASA.  Their proposed training center will be in Denver
I believe.

2) There is quite a bit of Argon on Mars.  This innocuous statement has
led quite a few people to believe that Mars is the key to the Solar System.
Why? Because Argon is supposed to make wonderful reaction mass for the
proposed Solar Electric Propulsion System (SEPS).  With a fuel factory on
Mars, the entire Solar System is available, or so it is claimed.  Thus
a proposal for a Mars expedition using a Mercury-fueled SEPS attached to
a Shuttle External Tank.  Total cost should be somewhat cheaper than previous
missions based partly on the fact that the spacecraft does not carry reaction
mass for the return trip.  The expedition would land and construct a permanent
base and Argon mine.  When enough fuel was mined, some of the crew would rotate
home (after about 6 months on Mars) and a new crew would arrive from Earth.
The obvious goal is a permanent Mars base and eventual fuel-based economy 
revolving around it.  The attractive feature is that most of the expedition
is based on current technology and uses bargain basement materials, such as
the Shuttle ET.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Jul-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #154    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 154

Today's Topics:
		    News of Space Operations Center   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 1981 0942-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: News of Space Operations Center   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

NASA Official Says Space Development Worth Price
By ANDREW M. WILLIAMS
Associated Press Writer
    SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - Space isn't the cheapest place to build
a service station, but scientists believe one orbiting 200 miles
above Earth would be worth the investment.
    Such a ''filling station in space'' would contain tools for
servicing satellites in need of minor repairs and fuel for refilling
tanks of cruising space shuttles, said Clarke Covington, NASA's
manager for program development.
    Covington said the space station, called the space operations
center, has top priority on a list of new projects in space now that
America has sent men to the moon and built a reusable spaceship,
referring to the space shuttle Columbia.
    But with the mood in Washington favoring spending cuts, he said the
agency will have to prove the station is a good investment. The
latest estimates are that the station would cost almost $6 billion in
1982 dollars.
    As planned now, Covington said, the space station would contain
living quarters - two four-person modules that would be supplied for
90-day periods.
    Covington said the operations station could serve as a ''toolshed''
where astronaut-mechanics could get equipment needed to repair faults
on orbiting satellites. He said several $50 million satellites
orbiting now are not operating because of minor flaws.
    The refueling point would save the cost of launches from Earth's
gravity.
    And there will be room for companies to buy space to carry out
zero-gravity experiments, Covington said in an interview.
    Because of the multitude of new experiments that could be carried
out in zero-gravity, the country could develop a technological edge on
the rest of the world that would take 100 years of working in normal
gravity to make up, he said.
    ''There are some things you just can't do on the ground,'' Covington
said. For instance, he said, scientists can make extremely pure
medicine and make certain chemicals crystalize that would not do so
within Earth's gravity.
    Despite the high price tag, Covington said he's optimistic the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration can get a commitment -
perhaps $25 million - for the project in the 1983 federal budget. He
said top NASA officials support the project.
    If all moves smoothly, NASA could begin assembling the orbiter in
1989 and place it in space in 1990, he said.
    Covington said the agency would build the station in pieces ''in an
effort to spread the cost'' and might first try to orbit a service
module containing electrical systems and build on living quarters
later.
    



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Jul-81  1619	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #156    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 156

Today's Topics:
	  Halleys Comet mission gets support from the Big Guns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 July 1981 18:43-EDT
From: Owen T. Anderson <OTA at MIT-MC>
Subject: Halleys Comet mission gets support from the Big Guns.
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

In this week's Newsweek (Aug 3rd) George Will, in his column on the back
page, comes out strongly in favor of the Halley's comet mission.  This is
quite an interesting column, especially considering Will's connections in
this administration, so you should go immediately out and beg, borrow or
steal a copy and read it.
------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Jul-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #157    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 157

Today's Topics:
			      Missing digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 1981 1646-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Missing digest
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Although the version number of the last digest indicates that there was an
issue #155 which no one got, don't believe it.  I just got the numbering
fouled up.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #158    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 158

Today's Topics:
		      Private enterprise in space  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 August 1981 02:31-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Private enterprise in space  
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Hilarious development: it turns out the Delta program manager
was not told by the interviewing reporter that the private
enterprise program in question was Gary Hudson's.  he is an old
friend of Gary's.  the reporters called and said someone was
trying to launch a private vehicle that would take the place of
the Delta. They did not say who.

next day Gary had a long conversation with the chap...

    Date: 11 Jun 1981 0941-PDT
    From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>

    NASA Scoffs at Private Launch Plan
    By ANDREW M. WILLIAMS
    Associated Press Writer
        HOUSTON (AP) - NASA officials say spaceflight should remain a
    function of the government, and they scoff at plans by a group of
    Texas businessmen to launch satellites for profit.
        Space Services Inc., a new Houston-based company, says it can launch
    satellites for a fraction of NASA's price and hopes to become the
    first private U.S. business in the market by late 1982.
        ''Are they aware that I've got a staff of several thousand people
    working in a program that launched 10 flights last year?'' said Peter
    Eaton, NASA's program director for Delta Launch Vehicles.
        But Gary Hudson, whose GCH Inc. has spent the last six months
    building the first rocket for Space Services, said Eaton's problem is
    that he is part of the government bureaucracy.
        ''All bureaucrats require staffs of several thousand people,'' he
    said. ''The Thor rockets were launched (by the space agency in the
    late 1950s) by eight people from a transporter. Why does Eaton need
    600 to 1,000 people now to do the same thing?''
        David Small, space specialist for the State Department's legal
    office, said the government has not even decided yet whether it will
    approve the venture. ''I'm just not ready to make a formal judgment,''
    Small said.
        Eaton asked, ''If they launch their rocket and it comes down in the
    middle of downtown wherever, who's going to pay the damages?''
        Space Services President David Hannah said the company carries $25
    million in flight insurance.
        ''The cutting edge of all this is whether the government will say,
    'The government's got to do this kind of work,' '' he said. ''If it
    does, then I think we really have given ourselves over to a
    socialistic form of government.''
        A sub-orbital test flight of the 53-foot-long rocket is set for next
    month, said Charles Chafer, Space Services Vice President, with a
    splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico. ''If this is successful I think we
    will have established our credibility,'' said Hannah. The rocket will
    be launched from Matagorda Island on the Texas coast.
        Hudson said Space Services would put a satellite such as those used
    in weather observation into a 100-mile-high orbit for about $2
    million.
        He predicted a $5-million pricetag for sending communications
    satellites into geosynchronous orbit, in which the payload turns with
    the Earth and constantly remains about 23,000 miles above the same
    point, appearing stationary to people on the ground.
        NASA officials said it costs about $22 million for the lower orbit
    and $25 million for the higher one using Delta rockets carrying
    2,400-pound payloads comparable to those forseen by Space Services.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #159    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 159

Today's Topics:
		       Permission for use of space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: MIKLEV@MIT-AI
Date: 08/01/81 15:01:31
Subject: Permission for use of space

MIKLEV@MIT-AI 08/01/81 15:01:31 Re: Permission for use of space
To: space at MIT-MC
CC: pourne at MIT-MC
Can anybody say with some authority just what "permission" the State 
Dept. can grant/withhold with respect to private space oprations?
I can't figure out what their authority is.  Any Space Lawyers on
the list?
     Mike


------------------------------

Date: 01 Aug 1981 1220-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

BC-Space Services,230
Rocket Engine Test Postponed Again
Eds: No PMs planned.
    MATAGORDA ISLAND, Texas (AP) - A kerosene fuel line leak just before
ignition Friday forced Space Services Inc. officials to again cancel
a five-second test of the engine in the privately owned 55-foot
Percheron rocket.
    ''We got about as close to ignition as you can get,'' said technical
director Eric Laursen after scientists discovered that the leak had
saturated the rocket's starting cord.
    ''We don't have to correct the leak,'' said chief scientists Dr.
David J. Ross. ''We simply have to protect the igniter.''
    Ross said the small leak developed as the liquid oxygen-kerosene
fuel lines were being pressurized before ignition.
    He said the rocket's electronic ignition system operated properly
Friday, but that kerosene dampened the cord and kept it from igniting.
Ross said the new problem will delay the rocket engine test until
Tuesday.
    A combination of bad weather and mechanical problems has postponed
the initial engine test for more than a week. Officials had hoped to
fire the engine twice this week - one for five seconds and again for
25 seconds - while the rocket sat on its launching pad.
    The Percheron, billed as private industry's first attempt to compete
with NASA, was scheduled to reach a sub-orbital altitude of 14,500
feet in a test launch Aug. 12 from this island about 50 miles off the
Texas coast.
    
ap-ny-08-01 0119EDT
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #160    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 160

Today's Topics:
			   re: Percheron launch
			      NASA troubles
		       permission for use of space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  3 Aug 1981 0902-PDT
From: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE
Subject: re: Percheron launch
To: space at MIT-MC

Did I read that right?  This rocket is going to attain an altitude of
14,500 feet?  A sub-orbital flight indeed!
-------

------------------------------

Date:  3 Aug 1981 1536-PDT
From: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE
Subject: NASA troubles
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE

Recently I've had a chance to see some of NASA's problems at first
hand.  I have just graduated with a master's degree in electrical
engineering.  My specialty is integrated circuit design.  I applied
to the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, thinking that the advantages
of custom ICs in speed, power, weight etc. would really be of use to
the space program.  JPL is already doing some work in the area, so I
thought that I would fit right in.
   There was no response for a month.  Then after some prodding on
my part the personnel guy called up the IC people and then called back to
say that they weren't interested.  After another month I got a call from 
the IC group.  They had just gotten around to my resume and would like 
very much to have me come down and talk to them.  The visit went very 
well; I liked them and they liked me.  But the administrative people
couldn't seem to do anything right.  They couldn't pay for the plane
or arrange a rental car or pay for the hotel room. I was nearly broke
when I got there, but they could barely manage to get me enough
money to get back to the airport.  And, then with my plane due to take 
off in forty five minutes, no one could find my knapsack. 
   Another two months passed with no word from them.  I finally called
them up (this time bypassing personnel) and found that they thought
the other group was taking care of me.  The guy promised to look into 
it personally.  He checked with four or five different groups and
found that the reason no one had got in touch with me was that no one
had the money to support another engineer, even a recent college
grad.  Neither did he.  JPL is looking at 5 to 10 percent cutbacks in
most areas, and even deeper ones in fields like energy research.
   So even in the best of times NASA's bureaucracy would be a horrendous
drag on them.  Now, when times are lean, they can't even think about
new research lines, no matter how promising.  People are struggling just to
protect the programs they have.  There were few young people at JPL.
They can't afford them.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 03 Aug 1981 1640-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

 03-Aug-81  1242	Tavares.WFSO at MIT-Multics 	permission for use of space    
Date:  3 August 1981 15:41 edt
From:  Tavares.WFSO at MIT-Multics
Subject:  permission for use of space
To:  Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
In-Reply-To:  Message of 2 August 1981 07:02 edt from Ted Anderson

You probably have to go through the State Department to get an export license.
Don't laugh.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #161    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 161

Today's Topics:
			Permission to enter space
				   JPL
			      NASA troubles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 1981 10:18:56-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Permission to enter space
Cc: joej at CCA-UNIX

   Seriously, there's an interesting problem here. Space is frequently
supposed to be substantially internationalized (with the exception of
such specific provisos as reservations (for comsat positions) covering
most of the geosynchronous orbit). Obviously there aren't customs
facilities in orbit yet, but the U.S. government (at least) has
substantial penalties for leaving or aiding someone to leave the
country without a passport. I'd like to see some people who actually
know about national and international law take this up, if we have
any such on the list.
   As a side note, I'll say that I find the attitude of this company
with regard to earthbound liability appalling. Even D. D. Harriman
took more precautions against catastrophic accidents than these
people!

------------------------------

Date:  5 Aug 1981 0035-CDT
From: Mabry Tyson <ATP.Tyson at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: JPL
To: Space at MIT-MC

In contrast to ICL.REDFORD@SU-SCORE's experience, I had no problems
in a consulting/interview trip to JPL about a year and a half ago.
The group I visited was small and interested in getting a PhD to head
their small research group.  Two of the three main people I talked
to were under 35. 

There were no significant adminstrative problems in my trip (although
there may have been small ones I have forgotten).  One difference was
that they contacted me rather than the other way around.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 5 August 1981 05:08-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: NASA troubles
To: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	JPL IS NOT NASA; and when one tries to generate some
Department of Defense project support for JPL, Goldberger at Cal
tech objects.  Lately the management of JPL seems to have
concluded that the Labs are God's Center for the Exploration of
the Univers, Preserving Purity at Taxpayer Expense, rathern that
an outfit originally founded to make JATO bottles for US Army
Air Corps planes (and tsuck out in the arroyo so they wouldn't
blow up Pasadena).

	I fear my sympathy for JPL was partly dissipated when I
watched Bruce Murray trash the Apollo Program (in company with
Carl Sagan) at the Beckman Auditorium during the Voyager Saturn
encounter special "Saturn and the Mind of Man."  ALthough the
Labs have done great work, and if we had lots of money they
could again, there is this attitude...

Ah, well.

As to the rest of NASA, much of it 'tis true; but there remain
also some very dedicatred people trying to hang on to the shreds
of US excellence...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #162    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 162

Today's Topics:
			       more on JPL
			private 'rocket' blows up
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  5 Aug 1981 1651-PDT
From: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE
Subject: more on JPL
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: ICL.REDFORD at SU-SCORE

I'm glad to hear that others have had better experiences with JPL
than I have, for I admire the work they do and hope they can keep
it up.  These are golden times for planetary science and JPL is in
a large measure responsible.  Even if space industrialization doesn't
turn out to be economic, and space colonization becomes no more attractive
than settling Antarctica, the knowledge gained from their probes will
be a permanent benefit from the space program.
-------

------------------------------

Date:  5 Aug 1981 1811-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
Subject: private 'rocket' blows up
To: space at MIT-MC

!a268  1652  05 Aug 81
AM-Rocket Explodes,140
Private Firm's Rocket Blows Up
    MATAGORDA ISLAND, Texas (AP) - A test rocket exploded on the launch
pad Wednesday afternoon during a test on the missile owned by a
company that hopes to be the first private firm to put a satellite
into orbit, a company spokesman said.
    No one was injured in the blast about 5 p.m. CDT, Space Services
Inc. spokesman Walt Pennino said.
    ''The main liquid oxygen valve did not open,'' said Pennino. ''At
the moment they're putting out a small brushfire.''
    If the engine tests had been successful, company officials said they
hoped to launch a suborbital flight Aug. 12.
    The flight plan for the suborbital mission called for the rocket to
climb to an altitude of 14,500 feet and then drop into the Gulf of
Mexico about three miles from the launch site.
    David Hannah, president of the Houston-based company, said the first
flight was meant to establish the company's credibility in the eyes
of investors.
    
ap-ny-08-05 1944EDT
**********
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #163    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 163

Today's Topics:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: INSANE@MIT-AI
Date: 08/06/81 18:31:31

INSANE@MIT-AI 08/06/81 18:31:31
To: SPACE at MIT-AI
CC: INSANE at MIT-AI
Please add me to your mailing list. Thanks...


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #164    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 164

Today's Topics:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 08 Aug 1981 0311-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
To:   arms- at MIT-MC, space at MIT-MC

n519  2353  07 Aug 81
BC-WAR-08-08
    EDITORS: The following is from the London Telegraph and is for use
only in the United States and Canada.
    By Maj. Gen. Edward Fursdon
    Daily Telegraph, London (Field News Service)
    LONDON - We should turn a strategic policy of ''Mutually Assured
Destruction'' into one of ''Mutually Assured Survival'' though
exploitation of the West's lead in space technology over the Soviet
Union, an American general has said.
    The concept of a balance of terror was ''an immoral legacy'' to pass
on to our children.
    This was the keynote of a speech by Lt. Gen. Daniel O'Graham at the
first annual World Balance of Power conference held at Leeds Castle,
Kent.
     O'Graham, former director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency,
said that even with existing technology, provided the West had the
guts to devote the necessary resources to it, a ballistic missile
defense space system could be established within five years.
    The system could destroy Soviet missiles just after they were fired,
when they were at their most vulnerable, and before deployment of
their multiple warheads.
    Particularly with the space shuttle, the United States was 10 years
ahead of the Soviet Union in space, and if we really exploited this,
within five years the West could be 20 years ahead, he asserted.
    We need to play ''our long suit'' while we have one. ''Space is
militarized now,'' he said, and had been ever since the first space
shot.
    There were four areas of strategic importance today: military
balance, the crisis of energy, the problems of the Third World, the
the West's malaise of spirit.
    The general said although his system was not a cure-all, it would
achieve more than merely retaining a military balance.
    It would be designed to beam energy to Earth in general and to the
Third World in particular. It could also counter the malaise by
providing a new frontier of challenge to the young.
    The conference was organized by the London-based Foreign Affairs
Research Institute.
    Nine organizations specializing in strategic and foreign-policy
issues - from the United States, France, West Germany, Indonesia,
Japan, Pakistan and Britain - met at Leeds Castle to discuss ''a
global strategy for the defense of world freedom.''
    They discussed the need for such a strategy, the security of space
and the sea lanes, safeguarding raw material supplies, and the need
to fight a political war.
    END
    
nyt-08-08-81 0253edt
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Aug-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #165    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 165

Today's Topics:
		  Space-based ABM system (Gen O'Graham)
			 SPACE Digest V1 #164    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 August 1981 21:31-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Space-based ABM system (Gen O'Graham)
To: OTA at SU-AI
cc: ARMS- at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

By the way, I got the info about this system in the mail a couple weeks
ago, but didn't have time to read it until this morning.  His article
emphasizes security through strength, a famous military cliche.  This
news-story is rather different emphasizing Mutually Assured Survival
instead.  I'm not sure what to make of his motives, although I think
MAS is a lot better than MAD and would like to see the world head
away from MAD towards MAS as soon as possible.

------------------------------

Date: 9 August 1981 04:12-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPACE Digest V1 #164    
To: OTA at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

1. It's Daniel O. Graham, not O'Graham.

2. Assured Survival was the strategic doctrine described in THE
STRATEGY OF TECHNOLOGY back in 1969, which Possony and I, with
the aid of a former student of Stefan's named Richard V. Allen,
tried to get Nixon to adopt.  That didn't work.

3. Dan Graham is a good man.  He is unfortunately sometimes a
bit TOO enthusiastic; not being a technical type, he can be sold
unrealistic costs and schedules by enthusiasts; but his ideas
are basically sound, and he's got the ear of the Senate.  when I
spoke to Danny last, he was headed that afternoon with Teller
for the White House.  

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #166    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 166

Today's Topics:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 1981 2010-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
To:   arms-d at MIT-MC, space at MIT-MC    

a269  1802  11 Aug 81
AM-Soviet-Space,340
Russians seek U.N. Ban on Weapons in Space
    MOSCOW (AP) - The Soviet Union said Tuesday it will seek a United
Nations ban on all weapons in outer space, including any that could be
carried aloft by the U.S. space shuttle Columbia.
    A letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim from Foreign
Minister Andrei Gromyko asked that the General Assembly consider the
proposal at its 36th session this fall, the official news agency Tass
said.
    Gromyko's letter said that although existing international
agreements on the peaceful use of outer space forbid weapons of ''mass
annihilation there they do not cover all weapons. As a result of
this, the risk of militarization of outer space has been maintained
and recently increased.''
    ''The Soviet Union believes this cannot be tolerated. It is in favor
of keeping outer space clean and free of any weapons for all time
...''
    A Tass commentary on the letter said the treaty would outlaw all
types of weapons in outer space, ''including also on manned spaceships
of multiple use of the existing type and of the types that might
appear in the future'' - a clear reference to the reuseable U.S.
shuttle, which made its inaugural flight last April.
    The Soviets have repeatedly condemned the shuttle's military
potential, fearing it could be used to capture Soviet space satellites
or blast them out of orbit.
    Both the United States and the Soviet Union already use spy
satellites, and each country is reported to be developing such weapons
as high-power laser beams that could destroy each other's satellites.
    The United States, Soviet Union and some 70 other countries signed a
1967 pact outlawing the placing of weapons of mass destruction,
including nuclear devices, in earth orbit or on ''celestial bodies.''
    The 1979 Salt II strategic arms accord, which was not ratified by
the U.S. Senate, barred the use of ''fractional orbital'' missiles,
which could be fired into space and then shot back to earth over enemy
territory.
    Three rounds of U.S.-Soviet talks on limiting so-called
''satellite-killer weapons'' were held in 1978 and 1979 without an
agreement.
    
ap-ny-08-11 2053EDT
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Aug-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #167    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 167

Today's Topics:
			   Photos from Space  
			 Something to think about
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 1981 1347-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Photos from Space  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n531  2247  15 Aug 81
BC-PHOTO-08-16
    Weekly PHOTOGRAPHY column
    By John Alderson
    (c) 1981 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)
    
    During a recent trip to New York, I had the grand pleasure of seeing
''The Photography of Space Exploration'' at New York University's
Gray Gallery. It gathered images from Mercury to Saturn in a visual
sampling of man's galactic efforts, including Voyager II (now
outbound toward Uranus).
    Photographs from the space program have always been of the highest
interest, giving us an emphatically new perspective on our lives and
our own planet. We have watched this interplanetary drama unfold
through our television sets and our print media, but rarely if ever
before have images from space graced the cool walls of the gallery,
to be contemplated outside the context of scientific investigation.
    Of course, photographs from space have always been stunning and
transcended strict scientific documentation. The introduction to the
NYU exhibit perceptively compares the photos to the first awesome
views of the American West recorded by the pioneer landscape
photographers of the 19th century.
    ''The Astronauts,'' writes exhibit curator Richard Maurer, ''have
been accused of ineloquence for describing everything on their space
trips as 'fantastic.' Actually, it's rather telling about the
uniqueness of the experience that they could call up nothing with
which to compare it. After all, how else do we describe a new thing
but in terms of something we've already experienced?
    ''This is exactly our problem in looking at these photographs. We
can compare features such as volcanos, mountains and canyons on Earth
with their counterparts of the Earthlike planets, but even these
familiar landforms seem to be differently constructed from one planet
to the next.
    ''And in the never-never land of the outer solar system, comparisons
by Earth standards become almost meaningless: Jupiter has a hurricane
that could swallow several lesser planets; Titan has rivers of liquid
methane; Io's rivers are molten sulfur, and so on. It takes a lot of
imagination and a short course in planetary science to really begin
to see what is in these pictures.
    ''Still, for me, the fact that we have them at all is one of the
more astounding things about them. From the invention of photography
in 1826 until about 20 years ago, every photograph that was made was
an Earth picture, showing our Earthbound perspective on this world
and all that we could glimpse beyond it.
    ''Then in October, 1959, a Soviet spacecraft rocketed behind the
moon and photographed its unseen side. This was truly the first space
picture, and just 10 years later men with cameras actually stepped
out onto the moon and started photographing the scenery. Ten years
and some after that, it's still a little hard to believe.''
    Even as large a show as the NYU exhibit couldn't begin to reveal the
total visual record of the space program, which has been carefully
and voluminously documented by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. But this exhibit offers a balanced and tremendously
interesting overview of our efforts in space so far.
    NASA offers color and black-and-white prints as well as
transparencies and even negatives of some of the photos at the show.
I received prompt and detailed responses, including complete listings
of available photographs, from the following suppliers:
    - Holiday Fil 0:hittier, Calif. 90608: slide sets and films on
various aspects of the space program.
    - Photographic Illustration Co., Box 6699, Burbank, Calif. 91519:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory material, including Mariner, Viking and
Voyager missions to Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
    - Rapid Color Inc., 165 Second St., San Francisco, Calif. 94105:
Apollo, Pioneer, Viking, Voyager, Columbia missions.
    - Space Photographs, Box 486, Bladensburg, Md. 20710: This firms
seems to handle the majority of images listed in the ''NASA 1981
Photography Index,'' a 250-page gold mine of space documentation
dating back to 1956. Copies of the ''Index'' may be requested from
Audio Visual Branch, Public Information Division, Code LFD-10, NASA,
400 Maryland Ave. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20546.
    Prices vary among these suppliers and are generally far below what
you would expect to pay from a custom lab. Slides can cost as little
as 50 cents each in sets, black-and-white prints as little as 75
cents and 16-by-20 color prints can be purchased for under $20.
Darkroom enthusiasts can even order 4-by-5-inch negatives to do their
own printing.
    END
    
nyt-08-16-81 0145edt
***************



------------------------------

Date: 16 August 1981 19:46-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Something to think about
To: ARMS-D at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

Five years from now, when Voyager 2 reaches Uranus (assuming it makes
it thru the F-ring of Saturn this month), will there be anybody alive
on Earth to pick up the signals, or will we anihilate ourselves between
now and then via an exchange of thermonuclear weapons?
Five years is a long time to wait and wonder if we'll ever see Uranus
close up.
(P.s. it isn't actually going thru the F-ring, but it's going awful close,
and might pick up some scattered pieces of ring material.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Aug-81  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #168    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 168

Today's Topics:
		     Re: permission for use of space
		      AP-NBC Poll on Space Program 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 1981 13:54 PDT
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: permission for use of space
In-reply-to: Tavares's message of 3 August 1981 15:41 edt
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es@PARC

"You probably have to go through the State Department to get an export license.
Don't laugh."

Reminds me of a story someone from JPL told about the Venus 
probes and import/export laws.  It was some time ago, so this 
may not be remembered exactly, but my recollection is that 
they applied for and received a refund of the import tax on 
the diamond windows used over some probe instruments upon 
proof that the imported diamonds had left the US for Venus.  

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 1981 1446-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: AP-NBC Poll on Space Program 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a214  1050  18 Aug 81
AM-Poll-Space, Bjt,570
Polls Says Americans Support Space Program - For Someone Else
By TIMOTHY HARPER
Associated Press Writer
    NEW YORK (AP) - Most Americans strongly support the U.S. space
program, but wouldn't want to travel in outer space themselves, the
latest Associated Press-NBC News poll says.
    Sixty percent of the 1,601 adults polled by telephone Aug. 10-11
said they think the United States is spending not enough or about the
right amount of money on the space program, and two-thirds said they
think the space shuttle program is a good investment for the country.
    But 55 percent said they would not travel in outer space themselves
even if they had the chance; 42 percent said they would travel in
space if they had the chance, and 3 percent were not sure.
    The poll said 49 percent believe the emphasis of the U.S. space
program should be on national defense, while 32 percent said
scientific exploration, 10 percent said both and 9 percent said they
were not sure.
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has a budget of
about $7 billion next year, including more than $2 billion for the
space shuttle.
    Columbia, the first space shuttle, flew its first mission in April
and drew the nation's cheers when it made the first successful
fixed-wing ground landing from outer space. The next shuttle launch is
set for Sept. 30.
    The Pentagon earlier this year said it eventually plans to have an
permanent military force in orbit, and current plans call for a
greatly increased role in military space projects.
    The AP-NBC News poll said Americans who would like to fly to outer
space themselves are most likely to think the shuttle is a good
investment and most likely to say more should be spent on the space
program.
    Those who would travel in outer space themselves were more likely to
say the primary emphasis of the space program should be on scientific
exploration, while those who would not like to travel in space said
national defense is more important.
    Men answering the poll said by a narrow margin that they would like
to travel in space, but women were 2-1 in favor of staying closer to
Mother Earth.
    Women were, however, more likely than men to prefer national defense
to scientific exploration as the primary emphasis of the space
program.
    Young adults also were much more likely to say they would take a
spaceflight.
    The people most likely to pick national defense as the primary
purpose of the space program and the people most likely to say they
would travel in outer space included Democrats, liberals, those with
higher incomes and those who had attended college.
    As with all sample surveys, the results of the AP-NBC News polls can
vary from the opinions of all Americans because of chance variations
in the sample.
    For a poll based on about 1,600 interviews, the results are subject
to an error margin of 3 percentage points either way because of such
chance variations. That is, if one could have talked this past week
to all Americans with telephones, there is only one chance in 20 that
the findings would vary from the results of polls such as this one by
more than 3 percentage points.
    Of course, the results could differ from other polls for a number of
additional reasons. Differences in the exact wording of questions,
differences in when the interviews were conducted and different
methods of interviewing could also cause variations.
    
ap-ny-08-18 1342EDT
***************

a215  1057  18 Aug 81
AM-Poll Facts,420
With PM-Poll-Space
    NEW YORK (AP) - Telephone interviews with 1,601 adults across the
country Monday and Tuesday were the basis for the Associated Press-NBC
News poll on the U.S. space program.
    Telephone numbers were selected for the survey in such a way as to
give every household in the country with a telephone a roughly equal
chance of being chosen. The sample was drawn in order to reflect
accurately the makeup of the country by region and by city size. A
procedure was used to give a proper balance of men and women in the
survey.
         . . .
    Here are some of the questions and the results from the AP-NBC News
poll:

1. Should the emphasis of the U.S. space program be primarily on
national defense or on scientific exploration?
    National defense - 49 percent.
    Scientific exploration - 32 percent.
    Both - 10 percent.
    Not sure - 9 percent.
2. Do you think the United States is spending too much money on the
space program, not enough money or about the right amount?
    Too much - 31 percent.
    Not enough - 22 percent.
    Right amount - 38 percent.
    Not sure - 9 percent.
3. If you had the chance in your lifetime to travel in outer space,
would you do so or not?
    Yes - 42 percent.
    No - 55 percent.
    Not sure - 3 percent.
4. Do you think the space shuttle program is a good investment for
this country, or don't you think so?
    Good investment - 66 percent.
    Not a good investment - 26 percent.
    Not sure - 8 percent.
    
ap-ny-08-18 1349EDT

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Aug-81  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #169    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 169

Today's Topics:
		     Re: permission for use of space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 August 1981 03:22-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: permission for use of space
To: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The story of refund of duty on diamonds and other imported
objects which have since been permanently exported to Venus and
other parts of the solar system is true.  Of course one wonders
what else could be done; on reflection perhaps it isn't so
surprising.

On the other hand, there is little explicit legislation which
definse the role of private enterprise in space; perhaps we need
a law which allows some governmetn safety inspection authority,
but explicitly denies the government any jurisdiction over the
"value" or "suitability" of space activities by private
citizens.
EXAMPLE:

At the AAAS meeting in San Francisco, Niven and I were
entertaining a lively group collected form the day's
presentations (we always do that; our scientific cocktail
parties are the main reason we go to AAAS meetings); we fell
into a discussion of getaway specials; it occurred to us that
space funerals might be a good idea.
	Cremate a corpse; freeze with minimum amounts of water;
propel ut of spacecraft (probably could get about a dozen
remains into a getaway special).
	Charge perhaps $10,000 per body.  
	"Rest eternal grant them, O Lord, and let light
perpetual shine upon them."  Eternal rest we don't know about,
but we can come pretty close to the light perpetual; I suppose
the ashes would be driven by light pressure to the uttermost
ends of the galaxy (well, there are of course places they can
reach, given expanding universe; but if the universe is closed,
even that's not a limit...)

	Alas, when we applied for a getaway special for that
purpose we were told that was a frivolous and crass
exploitation.  Now I can't really object, given that getaway
specials are subsidized, and except for studying the psychology
of human necrophobia and eccentricity I can't see any scientific
purpose; but we were then curious enough to ask when we might be
able to rent some orbital velocity at full prices (after all, we
might get a customer even ad huge prices; look at what was spent
on the Taj Mahal...): and were told that wasn't suitable even at
full price.
	That latter I resent.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #170    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 170

Today's Topics:
			       AP-NBC poll
		   Shuttle news brief from Boston Globe
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 1981 0904-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Space "burial"
	NASA's knee jerk conservativism is resentable, all right, but
isn't launching of mortal remains just a perfect task for the free
enterprisers?  Truax could handle the west coast traffic, Hudson
the southeast leaving the overseas business to Lutz (Otrag).  And
maybe the Europeans would sell Ariane space just to spite the unimaginative
Yank bureaucrats.



------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 1981 1117-PDT
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: AP-NBC poll
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

The poll emphisizes the fact that 55% of the people in this country would
not go into space, but that 42% would.  Wow!!! Almost half the people
WOULD go into space if they had the chance.  Thats way above what I would 
have thought.  We ought to finance the space program by selling tickets.

Also, the question of scientific research vs. national defense is typical.
Both are OK reasons to go into space, but the real reason is to expand the
industrial base.  (actually the real reason is because I want to go).


				Alan
-------

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 1981 2232-EDT
From: Roger H. Goun <G.ROGER at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Shuttle news brief from Boston Globe
To: space at MIT-MC

"WASHINGTON -- The second flight of the space shuttle Columbia will be delayed
a few days beyond the planned Sept. 30 launch because of several minor
technical problems, space agency officials reported yesterday.  They said the
movement of the spaceship from its hangar to launch pad 39A at Cape Canaveral,
Fla., would take place Aug. 31 instead of Aug. 31 [sic; anybody know the true
dates?].  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration said it is
assessing the impact this will have on the liftoff date.  (AP)"
-------

------------------------------

Date: 20 August 1981 23:37-EDT
From: Keith Dow <KED at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     An article tittled "The Coldest Neutron Star" appears in
the June 15th issue of Physical Review D. In it, the lowest
temperature possible for a neutron star is given as 100 degrees kelvin. 
It is pretty simple to read, and worth looking up. My favorite quote from
it is "The prospects of observing such cold stars do not seem
very bright...."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #171    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 171

Today's Topics:
			   AP/NBC Space Poll  
		      remains to be seen (or unseen)
		     first Earth space L-5 convention
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 1981 0936-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: AP/NBC Space Poll  
To:   space at MIT-MC  


A question that the poll *should* have asked, after this question:

``  2. Do you think the United States is spending too much money on the
space program, not enough money or about the right amount? ''

is:

``  2.5 How much money do you think the United States is spending on
the space program? ''

Most of the non-space types I have talked to, seem to believe that
the US is spending (to paraphrase Dr. Sagan) ``Billions and billions
of dollars'' on NASA.  It would be interesting to correlate that
31 percent (people who thought we were spending too much on space)
with figures indicating how much they think we *are* spending.
(Mr. Wizard's Science Experiment #3:  Ask your freinds questions 2
and 2.5 above to get an idea of what ``The Person in the Street''
knows about the space program.)

				-- Tom



------------------------------

Date: 21 August 1981 23:14-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: remains to be seen (or unseen)
To: HPM at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Unfortunately the Hudson rocket philosophy is to sacrifice
reliability for cheap; "better to splash two or three out of
ten, if you pay only 10% of what NASA charges..."
	I don't know what kind of insurance I'd be able to get
aginast the possibility of splashing Uncle Henry in the ocean
rather than scattering him to the universe, but I expect I'd
have to give the money back anyway...

Of course I could argue that when the Sun goes red giant Uncle
Henry will get scattered (if he hasn't been carted away by L-5
colonies fleeing the planet)

------------------------------

Date: 22 August 1981 03:00-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: first Earth space L-5 convention
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

    The first convention of L-5 and other interest groups
will be held in los Angeles at the Airport Hyatt April 2 through
5 1982.  Convention will be about half "fans" and half
professionals, professionals being defined as those recruited
through announcements by AAS and AIAA and such.
    Guests of Honor: Robert A Heinlein and one other, the
unannounced will be an astronaut.  Mr. Heinlein warns that his
health sometimes does not permit travel, but intends to be
there.  It is not a long or hazardous journey for him.

    In addition to professional papers (more on that and
CALL FOR PAPERS below) there will be sessions on how to advance
the space program. Cooperation of a number of officials and
aerospace firms is assured, and Congressional assistants and
aides will also be present.
    PAPERS to include "respectably far out" topics for
discussion.  Thgese can include both technical aspects of space
industrialization and development ((one session will be on "What
is the Optimum First US SPace Station"); free enterprise in
space; topics for legislation including the Gingrich/Space
Caucus HR 4286 (the so-called Northwest Ordinance of Space).
All session topics not selected yet.
    Papers and ideas of sufficient interest and validity
will be presented to the Citizen's Council on national Space
Policy as agenda/discussion items; the Council reports to the
White House and  top levels at NASA.

Ought to be an interesting convention.  
Professional membership including banquet tickets, meeting
procedure summary, some papers, and tickets to a reception for
the convention guests of honor are $70.  Regular memberships (no
banquet ticket or reception tickets, few to no papers) are $35
in advance, more at the door, somewhat less for L-5 and AAS
members (see L-5 News)...

Tickets L-5 Society 1060 E. Elm St.  Tucson AZ 85719

L-5 is a registered 501-c3 educational non-profit organization;
the convention is recognized as "public interest" at several
USAF and NASA offices which are cooperating.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #172    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 172

Today's Topics:
			      spacing ashes
			       AP-NBC poll
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 August 1981 09:09-EDT
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>
Subject:  spacing ashes
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Gaa, what boredom.  Can we PLEASE change the subject?

  Howzbout supercooled computer centers up there, power supplied free?
  Howzbout making dangerous products?  Or gravity-labile ones?
  Howzbout retirement homes for people who can't hack the G-field here,
        like muscular dystrophy, MS, heart weakness victims?  
  While we're at it, howzbout a hotel for kinky sex for folks who like
        to do it in free fall?

Kee-reist, you've landed on one of my pet peeves (overly complex and
expensive funerals) and beaten the subject to death.  GrOWWr!

Oded

------------------------------

Date: 22 August 1981 18:01-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: AP-NBC poll
To: KATZ at USC-ISIF
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I suspect the 42% who said they'd go into space if given the chance
 really meant they'd go into space if it was free or very cheap.
 I might go myself if it cost only $100 and was incredibly safe
 ("over 4 million sold" without one fatality), but I don't see that
 feasible in the next 10 years so I'd probably answer "no" to the
 question if asked, or else "maybe" or "don't know".  If many of
 the 42% feel like I do, but interpreted the question as I
 described above (free or cheap), then selling tickets wouldn't
 finance the space program.
I'd like to see a poll that asks "after space travel is proven
 as safe as transcontinental airlines, would you take a trip into
 space, and how much would you be willing to pay for a 3-day
 weekend excursion into space?"
The histogram of answers will tell if tickets can finance the program.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #173    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 173

Today's Topics:
			       burying OAF
			      spacing ashes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 1981 1039-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at SU-AI>
Subject: burying OAF
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Sheesh what a grouch!  But I know what you mean. I yawn whenever I think
of the pyramids or the Taj Mahal too (and I don't even think of Grant's
tomb).  And I could never become an archeologist - digging up all those
extravagant old burials really grates on my liberal sensitivities. They
should have spent that money to support Aztec welfare bureaucrats instead
of on fancy last rites.



------------------------------

Date: 24 August 1981 03:47-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: spacing ashes
To: OAF at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, JEP at MIT-MC

    Date: 22 August 1981 09:09-EDT
    From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>

    Gaa, what boredom.  Can we PLEASE change the subject?

      Howzbout supercooled computer centers up there, power supplied free?
      Howzbout making dangerous products?  Or gravity-labile ones?
      Howzbout retirement homes for people who can't hack the G-field here,
            like muscular dystrophy, MS, heart weakness victims?  
      While we're at it, howzbout a hotel for kinky sex for folks who like
            to do it in free fall?

    Kee-reist, you've landed on one of my pet peeves (overly complex and
    expensive funerals) and beaten the subject to death.  GrOWWr!

    Oded
my apologioes. 

I often think the thing for me to do is refuse to write unless I
am paid.  I know what that's worth.
You convince me I should implement that decision.  I had no
desire to cause anyone pain.  I thought my little excursion into
logic and the bureaucracy was an amusing fable, more interesting
because it was almost taken seriusly--that ios, some of us
actually inquired whether we could do it, although whether or no
we would have done so is another story.

	So we cause you pain and burning resentment.

	It's obvious.  I understand my paying audiences.  But
the NET i don't understand at all, and what I ought to do is get
the hell off here.  I don't like upsetting peiple.
	I was just at the Sagan-Murray Planetary Society dinner
and concert (John Williams and the Music of Space) part of
Planetfest part of the Voyager encounter, and I thought I ought
to give a description, but ye gods, I suppose somebody would
resent that oo. Tzum Teufel mit ins!!!


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Aug-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #174    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 174

Today's Topics:
		      Voyager II television coverage
			      Administrivia 
		     Writers and reactions (83 lines)
		   Your last message to me: (194 lines)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 August 1981 21:04-EDT
From: Thomas L. Davenport <TLD at MIT-MC>
Subject: Voyager II television coverage
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

NASA and JPL are doing a series of hour-long "live" programs on
Voyager II.  It is quite well done and, best of all, it is on PBS so
there are no commercials!  In the Boston area it can be seen on WGBX
(ch. 44) every night this week at 8pm.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 1981 1603-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Administrivia 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

In the last few digests there has been an increasing quantity of
increasingly personal mail having little or nothing to so with
space-related topics that this list claims to address.  Judging from the
response from today's mail the increase is at least exponential.

My editorial policy has always been: "as little as necessary".  I have
decided to include these messages in the Digest, since the writers have
obviously put a good deal of effort into them.  On the other hand I think
this sub-discussion, which even viewed most favorably could only
degenerate into a discussion of computer mailing lists, has gone far
enough.  I urge people to keep their submissions to the general bounds of
space-related topics.  The inter-personal communications that are
generated as an inevitable by-product should, in general, be kept private.
This is not to discourage interesting arguments from developing but
there are limits.

Caveat (anyone know the latin word for reader?):  The remainder of this
digest can be ignored without any loss of information pertaining to the
topics normally covered by this list.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 1981 1103-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Writers and reactions (83 lines)
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: pourne at MIT-MC, jep at MIT-MC
Cc: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]24-Aug-81 11:03:21.WMARTIN>

The difference between "your paying audience" and the net is that
here people can answer back, immediately and without difficulty
or expense (that latter for those of us doing this at work or in
school).  Also, in commercial publishing, the true paying
audience you are writing to please is the editors and publishers,
not the readers.  The readers can get their say in the
marketplace, and in letters to the editor or at cons, maybe, but
those are far in the future, limited in scope, and involve
difficulty and expense.  Don't you think people talk back to your
stuff as written in books and magazines?  Of course they do!  You
just can't hear them.  After all, you aren't writing to please
everyone, are you?

You write 1) for groceries; 2) to be gratified in some manner; 3)
as a means of promulgating a point of view you wish to be
inculcated in the reader; 4) because some force (internal or
external) motivates you to do so.  Surely other reasons can be
traced back to these general categories.  However, except insofar
as it is a minor gratification under category 2, you don't write
with the aim of being "liked" by all possible readers, do you?
If so, you wouldn't write the way you do; you would be writing
entirely differetly about entirely different things.  Actually,
given any random group of readers of some reasonable size, say
the readership of "SPACE", I doubt that it would be possible for
any one written item to please each and every one of that group.
So what?  What difference does that make?  If the item you wrote
fulfilled the motivation provided by any one of those four
categories, it was worth it in and of itself alone.  If it had
been written for a magazine, say, and Oded read it there, and had
the same reaction, would you have cared?  Of course not.  The
only difference here is that the end-user readers get immediate
feedback to the authors.  Authors, as a whole, are not used to
this.  Traditionally, there was quite a phalanx of intervening
layers insulating authors from readers, plus there was quite a
time lag between the writing and the reading.  Here, response is
direct and immediate.  In SF, there probably has been more
reader-to-author feedback, because of cons, but still there is a
gulf, not often crossed, separating the respected pro and the
sniveling fan, and the fan hesitated to criticize the pro, no
matter what disparaging opinion he had of the pro's works.  Here,
on the net, everyone is just another address, and those of high
visibility get more flak than others, regardless of their outside
status.

Personally, as a non-author, I think it's better for an author's
other works to spend time exposed to such free and open criticism or
disrespectful banter, no matter how much of such exhanges may be
intrinsically worthless; it's better than isolation.  Contrast
your situation with Bob Heinlein, for example.  He seems to be
isolated into some sort of introspective cocoon which has changed
his stuff from a delight to read to rather tedious long-winded
prose badly in need of severe editing (which, I guess, his status
as a "master" has made highly unlikely).  (Of course, if he
doesn't need the money, he can write as he pleases for his own
gratification; if someone buys it, that's just gravy.)

Well, I guess this has itself been rather long-winded; maybe I
should just say, "Never mind the gripes -- let's hear about the
planetary society shindig..."

Will Martin

PS If you didn't like the comment, why give it extra status by
reiterating it in your response message?  Is this some editing
technique provided by a particular message system or editor, that
we see it so often?  For me to do it requires some extra steps and
a bit of careful planning in generating a reply.  For a lot of
you, it seems the normal technique used in any reply.  Is it your
convention, those of you who do this, to not keep copies of your
own messages, so that you provide the original back to the sender
as a courtesy?  It seems inefficient and wasteful of storage.  I
would think you would end up with rather involved nestings of
messages which are hard to read.  WM

------------------------------

Date: 24 August 1981 10:29-EDT
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Your last message to me: (194 lines)
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
cc: JEP at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, OAF at MIT-MC, REM at MIT-MC

Sir:

Your last message to me deserves a reply.  I'm in a good mood, so
you'll get one that fits the message.

<enter inferno mode>  [copyright Oded Anoaf Feingold, 1981]

Your sarcastic replies are predictable and tiresome.

Your pretentious reminders that you ought to write where you get
paid for it are hypocritical, since I have seen dozens of such
(directed personally to me) and here you stay, flaming on and on.

Your habit of CCing the world when you thump your chest is crude.
I am no longer willing to accept your stories about being unable 
to handle the complexities of 300-baud communication with MIT-MC.
(Note that I am specifically CCing the same people you addressed,
with two hand additions.  So you should see three copies of this.)

Your insistence on inserting the text being replied to when you
answer is redundant.  Or do you perhaps assume everyone is so lazy
and forgetful that (s)he must be reminded?  By whose limitations 
are you judging your readership?

Below, a few quotes from your reply, along with some oafish rhetorical 
analysis:  Two typos have been repaired, free of charge.

	"my apologies."  
		Bullshit! You don't apologize or you wouldn't
		lay out the rest of the message.  If you absolutely
		MUST contradict yourself, can't you wait a decent
		interval so people don't have their noses rubbed 
		in it?

	"I often think the thing to do is refuse to write unless I
	get paid."
		Maybe so, but you sure don't live by your thoughts.
		You only voice them each time someone objects to
		something you say, for WHATEVER reason.

	"I know what that's worth."
		Questionable - you know what you'll get paid for it.
		(Maybe - I dunno what part of your work is contracted
		with known fees.)  I try to consider other measures
		of value than what some publisher will pay me, since
		by that criterion the people who write lead articles
		for the National Enquirer write some of the worthiest
		literature on earth.  
		Then again, you just MIGHT know what that's worth.

	"You convince me to implement that decision."
		Me?  Convince anybody?  Wow!  Okay, I'll hold my breath
		and see what happens.

	"I had no desire to cause anyone pain."
		Interesting.  And sweet.  But what's it doing here?  Did
		I complain of pain?  Did anyone?

	"I thought ... was an amusing fable ...."
		Ya know, I thought so too - I got tired after the issue
		acquired a life of its own, and began to get bogged down
		in pettifogging details.  

<enter double inferno mode>

		I guess what I objected to was the transition (major truth
		coming) from an amusing fable to

		**  YET ANOTHER CAPPER CONTEST  **  .  (<-- period, see?)

		There!  It comes out.  I bitch about the use of limited-
		bandwidth publicly-supported communications channels for
		childish displays of ego.  Furthermore, I do NOT apologize
		for bitching.  Yet furthermore, I would object less if I
		thought you (in particular) had some perceived inadequacy
		for which you needed to compensate.  But in theory, you're
		a big shot, one of those people doing just what he wants
		and getting paid too.  You let us know you have all those
		secret ins with the insiders, the NASAites, the presidential
		advisers, the congressmen, the ..., which we mortals (who 
		aint published) can't hope for.  So why oh why do you of 
		all people have to put your ego on the line and be so 
		public so often with your puffery?  Whence the lack of
		self-confidence?  Why the burning need for continuous 
		public admiration and approval??l

<leave double inferno mode>

	"So we cause you pain and burning resentment."
		Pain?  (This topic was covered above.)  Burning resentment?
		Well, let's be specific.  The space ashes discussion got
		me impatient, enough to write a nasty note, but burning
		resentment?  Your patronizing, broadcast, hypocritical 
		message, to which I am replying, would be a credible shot at
		giving me burning resentment, except I've met its source.
		By the way, by "burning resentment" may I assume you mean
		the distresses hemorrhoids are supposed to cause?  (I
		plead lack of experience, and don't want to get confused
		on such an important point.)  So I guess that sentence
		was wrong at both ends, hence an unwarranted assumption.
		Nope - no burning resentment here.  Frankly, I'm enjoying 
		this.  And when I don't like what I see, I interfere long
		before it gets to the burning resentment stage, as I guess
		you've begun to notice.

	"It's obvious."
		What?

	"I understand my paying audiences."
		Really?

	"But the NET I don't understand at all, and what I ought to
	do is get the hell off here."
		You said it, baby, not I.  But somehow I doubt you
		mean it.

	"I don't like upsetting people."
		What does one say to a line like that from a person 
		like you?

	"... but ye gods," 
		What does this mean?
	
	"... I suppose somebody would resent that too."
		Possible.  Probable, even.  Is there a deeper message here?

	"Tzum Teufel mit ins!!!"
		Lessee, isn't it "Zum" rather than "Tzum.?"
		I don't understand the last word.  
			uns (?) - us?  (to the devil with us.  okay.)
			es  (?) - it?  
			ins??  (Common contraction for "in das."  But
				"in das" is a prepositional particle -
				are you sending prepositional particles
				to the devil?  What a concept!)
		If you're trying to impress us with your cosmopolitan
		education, maybe you should know the foreign phrases
		you toss.  If you want to say to hell with it, why 
		not say to hell with it?

Your message, like many others you have sent, is a minor monument to 
public preening and general bad taste.  I believe your original intent 
was to criticize, patronize and possibly humiliate me for criticizing you,
but you lapsed back into threatening to pick up your marbles and run
home to Mommy before I was thoroughly disposed of.  That's an error.
It doesn't make you loveable.  I've seen you do it at a lecture where
you were the guest of honor, and came within an inch of demanding my
money back.  But that's hard to do on the space digest.

I presume you're awaiting a great outpouring of earnest requests that 
you stick around.  Well, I personally have NO fear of your imminent 
departure:  You don't seem to think that what you say requires even a
token attempt at maintaining its believability and you enjoy crowing way
too much.  You ain't going away, so why not take it like a man?

<leave inferno mode>

<enter ruminative mode>
The preceding message was both long and insulting.  I won't pretend I
didn't enjoy it, but I'm not completely happy with distributing it 
over SPACE (ain't I punny today?).  I feel your oft-repeated public 
whining when yelled at is an unfair debating technique, and wanted to
lay out my bases for objecting to it.  In so doing, I have surely crossed
the line into uninvited analysis of your motivations and personality.
Readers of this message are kindly requested to consider such analysis 
an environmental description of the techniques you use (and to which I 
object).  They of course should also draw their own conclusions about the 
validity of said analysis, in the knowledge that it is personal, 
fragmentary and created in the context of an adversary relationship.  
(I claim no special psychological knowledge or training.)
<leave ruminative mode>

Furthermore, I'm glad you (and HPM, by the way) have let space funerals
return to well-deserved oblivion and are snapping at me instead (which
I enjoy.)  Maybe someday we can get back to discussing things of some 
relevance to space development?

<enter praise mode>
<enter hint mode>
If you want to see someone put me down with style, check out HPM's message.
<leave hint mode>
I don't happen to agree with his logic, but I was highly edified to read it.
<leave praise mode>

Yours,
Oded Anoaf Feingold

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #175    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 175

Today's Topics:
		 Update on Halley mission possibilities 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 1981 0115-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Update on Halley mission possibilities 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n521  0006  26 Aug 81
BC-HALLEY-08-26
    By William Hines
    (c) 1981 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)
    PASADENA, Calif.-The head of the U.S. space program left the door
open Tuesday-ever so slightly-for an American entry in the Halley's
Comet sweepstakes.
    But the United States will have to field something more than just a
''me-too'' effort to intercept and investigate the celebrated comet
on its coming visit to the inner solar system, James M. Beggs said.
    Beggs, administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, told his first formal press conference since taking
office June 1 that a decision on a Halley fly-by must be made in the
next four months.
    ''The window closes at the end of the year,'' Beggs said.
    He said a plan espoused by scientists at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory here is most attractive-''if it can be done''-and the
Reagan administrion will ''look at (it) very hard.''
    The JPL has proposed launching a one-ton, camera-equipped spacecraft
in 1985 to make a quick flight past Halley's as it streaks outward in
its closest approach to the sun.
    The spacecraft would carry a collector to capture wisps of gaseous
material during a fly-by some 600 miles from the rock-and-ice nucleus
of the comet in early March, 1986. This sample would be packaged in a
capsule that would be rocketed back to Earth orbit for retrieval by a
space shuttle in 1991.
    The whole package would cost about $300 million, JPL planners
estimate.
    A hard sell was under way here as Beggs visited this mountainside
laboratory overlooking Los Angles. He was joined briefly Tuesday
afternoon by Edwin Meese III, counselor to the vacationing President
Reagan.
     In response to a question about Reagan's interest in the space
program, Meese said: ''The president has indicated that he is very
much interested in space exploration and the Space Transportation
System (space shuttle) ... but obviously within budget.''
    Beggs, in response to questions about Halley's Comet, ruled out any
mission that did not offer something unique. The Soviet Union, Japan
and a European space consortium all have started building separate
spacecraft for a Halley's visit.
    Interest in Halley's Comet is intense not only because it is one of
the most storied features in the solar system, but also because a
chance to see it close is literally a once-in-a-lifetime event.
    Halley's follows a long oval path extending into interstellar space
that takes slightly more than 75 years to traverse. It last visited
the inner solar system in 1910 and will not come back until 2061.
    The ''window closes'' on a U.S. Halley's effort at the end of this
year-to use Beggs' phrase-because there will not be time enough to
build, test and launch a spacecraft if the go-ahead is given later.
    END
    
nyt-08-26-81 0309edt
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #176    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 176

Today's Topics:
				 dilemma
			      no, blast it..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 August 1981 03:04-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: dilemma
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

	1. My normal procedure is to log on late at night, when
I have finished work. At such times I expect I have considerable
more emotional vulnerability than usual; sometimes i've been
working on fairly heavy stuff with emotional wrenches in it (if
you don't feel a little something for your characters, it's for
sure the readers won't); other times, like today, I've been
involved in something such as the Voyager Encounter (we've been
out there all week).
	It isn't likely that I'll have any other time to play
about with this; and precisely why I'm tempted to do so at all
is a mystery to me, doubly so to my wife. Possibly it's a sense
of gratitude for being given access to this kind of resource;
possibly I regret leaving academic life more than I think I do.
Whatever the motivation, it's not really very rational;
considered rationally, I ought to stay with a game I know.
	2. Apparently, even though I attempt to restrict what I
say to an increasingly smaller number of lists, I can't say
ANYTHING that won't trigger replies that are not merely uncivil;
prompting me to reply in kind (especially if it's late enough).
This escalates to ludicrous proportions.  Now although I have
trained myself not to read messages such as the final one (one
cannot avoid the first page of them, but it's easy to avoid the
rest)I don't seem to be able to avoid them sufficiently  to
escape the first round; and given my confusion on how to operate
this mail system, copies often get places they shouldn't.
	3. I epxect there are some people who actually think my
remarks worth rading; but as it has been proved here, that';s
not certain. Perhaps it is only editors who read my books and
articles; and the readers hate them.  That's a disturbing
thought.  Sifficiently so that if I believed it, it wwould be
truly upsetting. I don't believe it; but I can't disprove it.
	4. Thus: I seem to have little to gain, and much to
lose, by continuing to inject anything into the SPACE
discussions. I tried to tell a tale about the Getaway Special,
and apparently the subject was terrifying to one of the readers,
who simply could not tolerate the discussion. I attempted to
make an announcement of a convention, and was told that was an
improper message.  In previous times I have met similar results,
so much so that I actually removed myself from the SPACE list
once, and have indeed removed myself from all the others so that
I won't be tempted.  This time, I thought, I will stay with
facts and innocuous materials; with results you have seen.
	5. The resulting emotional storms are embarrassing, and
in some cases sufficiently painful as to preclude getting any
more work done; assuring that I won't log on until all work is
done, assuring that it will be even later...
	6. All of which is a roundabout way of explaining why I
simply don't dare get more involved.  I'll write up my remarks
abouot what happoened at the labs this week for an editor who
will indeed act as if he wants them and will pretend that there
are readers who will want to read them; thus continuing the
delusions which I require in order to make a living.
	All of which is unfortunate, and to those of you who
have taken the trouble to send me messages of reassurance and
support, my thanks; but I really do see no way out of my
quandary. OAF is probably right.  My beer mutterings about
leaving the discussion probably are hypocritical, in that I am
fairly certain I hoped to be talked out of the decision; perhaps
the rest of his message was to the point (making it even more
imperative that I don't read it, given the way it started.)
	It can't be worth it to any of you.
	My apologies.

------------------------------

Date: 27 August 1981 03:35-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: no, blast it..
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

	On third or fourth thought, I will NOT allow Mr.
Feingold's studious attempts to be unpleasant to cheat me out of
the excitement of the evening.

	Howeve?r, Mr. Feingold is hereby enjoined from reading
this.  moreover, he should buy no more of my books.  Booksellers
across the nation will be forbidden to sell him any book written
by me or any magazine with a contribution by me.  We can agree:
I'll read nothing of his, and he nothing of mine.  And we can
all be happier.


	If you saw ABC news, that brief flash showing me
standing with Charles Kohlhase (mission planning chief) had the
JPL monitor in the background.  Up on stage at the time were
Brad Smith and most of the other mission scientists, trying to
talk without crying--at the time the scanning platform damage
was unknown, and many of their best pictures were pre-recorded
and hadn't been sent back to Earth yet, so they couldn't know
what pictures they had got.  And indeed the pre-recorded
pictures were coming in on the screen, "live" in the sense that
no one on Earth had ever seen those sights before, even as Brad
Smith and Ed Stone sat up there being questioned by reporters.
	What Kohlhase and I noticed was that the bright ring
observed inside the Enke Division was not on center; and we
recalled that earlier pictures had shown it exactly centered.
We speculated that this was a fairly dramatic demonstration that
this ring within a gap within the rings is eccentric.  It was
also kinky and lumpy.  So we had eccentric kinky Enke...

	Smith is of course an imaging astronomer, and head of
the imaging team. He was not, therefore, thrilled when the
mission planners scheduled a long PhotoPolarimetry (PPM)
experiment just at closest approach to the rings, looking down
through the rings at Delta Scorpio to see the star wink.  The
PPM is VERY sensitive, and thus they were able to achieve a
"resolution" of something like 20 meters; while the best image
they could get with the imaging cameras had resolutions in the
km. range.  The idea was to see just how much fine structure
there is in the rings; it was, after all, gettiing absurd.  The
A, B, C, D, E , F, G "rings" had all proven to be broken into
subrings, and those broken into smaller. The Cassini Division
was not only not explicable by resonance with larger satellites,
but contained five smaller rings within it, and each of those
had smaller rings within them...
	And aslthough the F ring is herded by two sheepdog
moonlets ("Moonlets and gaplets make braidlets in ringlets,
Saturn's got thousands of favorite rings..." sang Karen
Anderson) and for a while the moonlet theory was rife, there
didn't seem to be any moonlets within the B C strucutres yet
there were rings after ring after ring...
	Anyway, Brad Smith wasn't thrilled at the idea of losing
pictures to a goddam photopolarimeter; but it was planned
anyway, and for what seemed HOURS there were no photos coming
in.  Then they got the PPM data and took it up to analyse.
	Late last night, during occultation, Brad left the PPM
lab. Inside they were crowing: at the finest limit of
discrimination there seemed to be finer structure yet. It's not
thousands of ringlets, it may be tens of thousands...
	As Smith left the PPM lab he was heard to mutter "It may
have been worth the time after all..."

JEP

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #177    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 177

Today's Topics:
		      90000 space pictures availible
		       Planetfest 81 and Voyager II
		       Hot Voyager II Press Release
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 1981 1738-PDT
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: 90000 space pictures availible
To: space at MIT-MC, sf-lovers at MIT-AI, info-micro at MIT-AI
cc: katz at USC-ISIF, bboard at USC-ISIB

At the Planetary Society's Planetfest this past week, JPL had a
really neat display.  It seems that they are taking about 90,000
of the pictures taken by both Viking spacecraft (and orbiters)
of Mars, and the Voyager pictures of Jupiter, its moons, Saturn,
and its moons (and including "movie" sequences of images)
and are putting all this on ONE videodisk, which will be availible
to anyone for about $25 or so.

The disk they had there had "only" about 42,000 images, including 
the blue movie of the circulation around the red spot (a video
disk can hold 108,000 frames, and they are putting one image
per frame).  You can randomly access any frame.  They are using
an apple to control the videodisk player and to access information
about each image from a PDP 11.

Just imagine having access to all those pictures in your own home
whenever you want!!  I told them they ought to put Landsat pictures
on another disk, so that you could essentially get pictures of anywhere
on Earth for any 18-day period over the past 10 or 15 years. (They 
said that they didnt have anything to do with Landsat, but maybe
I should suggest this to those that do).

The facility doing this and their address and phone is:

	Planetary Image Facility
	Building 264, Room 115
	Jet Propulsion Laboratory
	4800 Oak Grove Drive
	Pasadena, CA  91103


					Alan
-------
-------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 1981 1806-PDT
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Planetfest 81 and Voyager II
To: space at MIT-MC, sf-lovers at MIT-AI
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

I have just spent this past week at the Planetary Society's Planetfest
and at JPL watching the results of the Voyager II flyby of Saturn.  I
thought I'd mention some of the things that have been happening.

First of all Planetfest was an incredible success, with, I would say
about 5-10 K people there.  They had exhibits, art exhibits, movies,
and talks by people like Bradbury, Roddenbury, Beggs (admin of NASA,
his talk was sent out over AP, and reprinted in a previous SPACE
digest), Murrey, Sagan, and others.  They had a display where they
are taking many of the Voyager and Viking pictures and putting
them on a videodisk (see my earlier message).  Also, they had
a working remote controlled Mars rover.  They had the photos coming
in from Voyager II being displayed on monitors and also on a very
large projection TV in a big auditorium.  They even had a performance
of one of the act's of Bradbury's Martian Chronicles.

There were tables representing many of the space groups (Delta Vee, OASIS,
BIS, etc) and many companies (Rockwell had talks and movies about the
Shuttle including a really great new movie which is narrated by Crippen
and Young and has no other music or narration on the first Shuttle flight).

The high point of the Planetfest was a panel discussion on Tue. night.  
There was about 2500-3000 people there, far more than I've seen at similar
panels.  The panelists were: Ray Bradbury, Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray,
Gene Roddenbury, and Ted Koppel of ABC's Nightline show.  The panel
started at 7:30, but without Sagan, who was at the Blue Room at JPL.  Then,
at 7:50, Ted Koppel got in a car to go to JPL's press area.  The discussion
went on until about 8:30 (which is 11:30 EDT) when Bradbury and Murray left
to go to another room at Planetfest where ABC was set up.  This left
Roddenbury there to keep everyone entertained for a few minutes.

At 8:30, Nightline comes on live, and we see it on the big projection
TV.  Ted Koppel is reporting from the press area at JPL, Sagen is in
the Blue Room at JPL, Murrey and Bradbury are at Planetfest, and also
in the show is the President's Science advisor and Sen. Proxmire.  I
hope many of you saw that show, it was fantastic.  It basically 
addressed the question of where do we go from here and how come
there isn't any money to continue planetary exploration.  Also, of course
was why there are three countries sending probes to Halley's comet, but
we are not.  

Everyone gave a great show, and perhaps swayed some public support
towards space.  Proxmire was his usual self although he did emphisize
that this program did not deserve a Golden Fleece award, its just
that the planets will be there "for thousands of years" and that
there is really "no hurry to explore them, we can do it in another
generation."

After the show was over, Koppel and Sagan get back in a car and 
come back to Planetfest (which was about 12 miles away) for the
last half hour of the panel.  

The audience got quite rowdy at times, and were all extremely pro
space, something I found really exciting.  Also, the Planetary
Society has about 80,000 members and expects about 100,000 by the
end of the year, which makes it the fastest growing organization
of any kind.

I don't really want to say much about what is going on at JPL,
because by the time you get this, the information will be out
of date, and its on PBS and the news.  Although the platform
arm is still not working correctly, they think it is working
well enough to resume taking pictures.  They see no reason not
to be able to carry out a Uranus mission in Jan, 1986.  (One
the buttons everyone is whereing says Goodbye Saturn, but
when you turn it over, it becomes Hello Uranus; the Uranus
is Saturn upside down.)

Anyway, lots of neat pictures have been coming in.  They will be
going past Phoebe on Sep 4 which ought to be interesting since we
have no good pictures of that moon and Voyager I didn't get
any pictures of it.


			On to Uranus!

				Alan
-------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 1981 2101-PDT
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Hot Voyager II Press Release
To: sf-lovers at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF, bboard at USC-ISIB

The following press release appeared at the JPL press room today:

				Alan

		FAULTRONIC PRESS RELEASE


Faultronics Systems, of Pasadena, California is responsible for
designing the failure of the Voyager 2 scan platform.  Azimuthal
rotation of the scan platform is inhibited to permit Voyager to
produce high-resolution photographs of its primary target, empty
space, without blemishes caused by ugly planets, satellites,
rings, etc.  This is of crucial importance for the Voyager mission
because, as Senator William Proxmire stated recently, "Those
planets will be there for a long long time."

Like its sister spacecraft, Voyager 1, Voyager 2's scan platform
is equipped with a custom designed gremlin, manufacured within
strict tolerance limits and engineered to exceed the planned
lifetime of the spacecraft.  The gremlin presented a formidable
challenge to Faultronics engineers in that, due to Voyager's
unique operating environment, it had to be constructed to be
highly resistant to fault detection.

Faultronics also manufactures failure systems for medfly eradication
and is a major contractor for the United States government.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #178    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 178

Today's Topics:
			   VOYAGER and friends
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 1981 0520-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: pourne at MIT-MC

!n545  0355  29 Aug 81
BC-JPL-2takes-08-29
    ADVANCE FOR SUNDAY
    By William Hines
    (c) 1981 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)
    PASADENA, Calif. - As Voyager 2 heads away from Saturn and into a
53-month period of silence far out in the solar system, the question
of the future - if any - of deep-space missions haunts the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory.
    There seems to be no doubt the lab will have a piece of the action
if America has a future in deep space. But ample grounds exist for
wondering if there is any such future worth talking about.
    JPL had a leading role in the U.S. space program from the beginning.
It was this laboratory (then under Army control) that put together
the 31-pound Explorer 1, America's belated successful entry in the
space race.
    A picture of rocket expert Wernher von Braun, JPL Director William
H. Pickering and physicist James A. Van Allen, of Van Allen belt
fame, is a classic memento of the early Space Age. The date was Feb.
1, 1958; the place, the National Academy of Sciences in Washington;
the occasion, Explorer 1's successful completion of its first orbit
of Earth.
    Since then, JPL has opened the solar system to human exploration.
Its credits include fly-bys, orbiting flights and landings on six
bodies in the solar system (Mercury, Venus, the Earth's moon, Mars,
Jupiter and Saturn). Its futures book contains two more planetary
visits - to Uranus and Neptune - by Voyager 2, which cruised past
Saturn last week.
    But what is this $253 million engineering complex on a California
hillside going to do for an encore? As much as a budget-conscious
administration will allow it to do, certainly; nowhere near as much
as technologists here would like to do if they could.
    Without a trace of false modesty, the present director, Bruce
Murray, calls his lab the unrivaled center of ''world-class
engineering,'' the pinnacle of U.S. technology.
    There is precious little on the lab's plate these days, and what is
there has been trimmed and delayed by factors beyond the control of
anyone here. Far more than anything else, the multibillion-dollar
space shuttle is responsible for the low estate to which the
interplanetary space effort has fallen.
    This is ironic, because the promise of the shuttle was low-cost
rocket power that would make all kinds of space programs easy and
cheap.
    It hasn't turned out that way. JPL-based projects have been delayed,
cut back and even eliminated because the shuttle needed more money,
or couldn't lift the promised weight into deep space, or both.
    As a result, a spacecraft that should have been launched toward
Jupiter in January, 1982, to do prolonged exploration of that planet
and its moon system, will not be launched until 1986, '87 or '88.
What is left of this project, called Galileo, is less ambitious than
was planned five years ago.
    A Venus-orbiting radar explorer has likewise been delayed for
several years. And the U.S. half of an international program to
explore the sun's polar regions has disappeared.
    Murray, in an interview last week, bluntly termed promises made for
the shuttle ''a fake,'' and said whatever other case could be made
for the big airplane-like spacecraft, ''it's a lousy way to launch
interplanetary payloads.''
    Pickering, Murray's predecessor as lab director, agrees the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration made a mistake by forcing
shuttle launchings on the managers of the interplanetary program.
Like Murray, he prefers old-fashioned, non-reusable rockets.
    Director from 1954 to 1976 and now retired, Pickering supervised the
early successes and failures through which JPL evolved into the
world-class center it is today. Its triumphs in Pickering's time
included eight unmanned moon landings; three Mars fly-bys; one
orbital mission around Mars, and two fl
ghts past Venus, one of which
went on to visit Mercury not once but three times.
    Pickering also was in charge when the Viking Mars landers were built
and launched, but had left by the time they landed. And, of course,
he supervised the first four years of Voyager development that
culminated in twin launchings in the summer of 1977.
    Clearly, Pickering is entitled to his opinion about launching
spacecraft. His argument for using expendable rockets goes this way:
    ''I don't have to worry about launching from a moving platform in
space; I have a good, solid launching site in Florida.
    ''Sure, I need a bigger booster rocket instead of just upper stages,
but I have a feeling that as long as we're dealing with spacecraft of
about the size we use now - in the neighborhood of 1 ton - our
booster technology is in pretty good shape.
    ''Perhaps we'd be better off to continue to exploit that technology
rather than go off in this new (shuttle) direction.''
    (MORE)
    
nyt-08-29-81 0657edt
**********
!n546  0402  29 Aug 81
BC-JPL-1stadd-08-29
    X X X NEW (SHUTTLE) DIRECTION.''
    Pickering and Murray are confident the lab will survive in some
form, but many of those who work here have qualms about just what
form. Murray said publicly last week that as interplanetary space
activity cools, JPL will take on increased work for the military.
    Under the military-oriented Reagan administration, this is the
survival instinct at work. But does it not raise the possibility of
military domination of a facility that has become great doing science
largely for science's sake?
    Murray says no, and Pickering agrees. Both express confidence that
JPL can control the force of military demands, and will be able to do
only the things it really wishes to do.
    ''People at CalTech (which manages JPL for NASA for a fee of $6.6
million a year) are very concerned about that,'' Murray said in an
interview.
    ''There's a valid issue abou  JP BV S 
ALSO FOR BEING PART OF A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY IN PEACETIME. I'm not
saying how I feel personally, but as an issue it needs to be
addressed.''
    The unquestioned and unparalleled excellence of the U.S.
interplanetary space program stems from the initiative of scientists
here; it is not something that someone else dreamed up and handed to
JPL to execute.
    Whether such imaginative folk will be inclined to weather a
half-decade or more of doldrums remains to be seen. The team that
built and flew trail-blazing spacecraft for almost a quarter-century
could not be easily re-assembled if its members drifted apart.
    The so-far triumphant flight of Voyager 2 through outer space is an
outgrowth of a CalTech graduate student's discovery that a rare
conjunction of outer planets in the 1970s would make it possible to
explore the entire solar system beyond the asteroid belt using a
single spacecraft.
    This developed into a program proposal called ''The Grand Tour,''
which had to be done about now or not at all until the middle of the
22nd century. Grand Tour didn't get off the ground, but a less
ambitious Voyager version did.
    Launched in July and September, 1977, the twin Voyager spacecraft
studied the mini-solar systems of Jupiter and Saturn in detail. Then
Voyager 1 went north out of the solar system while Voyager 2 headed
toward Uranus and Neptune. Pluto, the fifth target of the Grand Tour,
will not be visited at any time in the near future. JPL planners have
developed a ''wish list'' that envisions deep-space explorations as
far in the future as 2004. To which Murray just laughs.
    ''It's very good to do planning, but a long-range plan doesn't
exist. There is no U.S. future in space,'' he said.
    Lest that sound overly pessimistic, Murray explains that a future in
space comes into being when politicians in Washington approve
specific projects. And approvals these days are few and far between.
    It is a telling commentary on a once-vigorous space program that the
next big newsmaker from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory will not occur
for almost 4 1/2 years: the flight of Voyager 2 past the distant planet
Uranus.
    END
    
nyt-08-29-81 0704edt
**********
-------

------------------------------

Date: 30 August 1981 01:21-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

    COMSAT@MIT-MC 08/30/81 01:20:48
    Error in input request file.
    Parsing error: EOF before attribute finished.
    Line stopped at is:
    	
    Message not sent and not queued; text of bad file follows:
    -------
    FROM-PROGRAM:RMAIL
    FROM-XUNAME:POURNE
    FROM-UNAME:POURNE
    AUTHOR:POURNE

    RCPT:(SPACE@MC)
    SUBJECT:VOYAGER and friends
    	
    TEXT;-1
    	The planetary soceity concert with John Williams
    conducting was an enormous success, with most of the JPL mission
    staff present; the reception afterwards had Jerry Brown and
    entourage, several congresscritters, and even a county
    supervisor (it is a little known fact that an LA county
    supervisor is one of the most powerful officials in the world,
    answerable to damn few).  Interest in space was apparrent.

    The NET is very flakey tonight and I keep getting glitches in
    what I send. More another time. Thanks for all the responses to
    earlier imbecilities.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Aug-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #179    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 179

Today's Topics:
		       Planetfest 81 and Voyager II
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 August 1981 17:45-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Planetfest 81 and Voyager II
To: KATZ at USC-ISIF
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, sf-lovers at MIT-AI

I liked Carl Sagan's rebuttal to Proxmire's claim -- sure the planets
will be around for billions of years, but we might not.  We need to
get out to space, get the overall perspective, and try hard to
survive, before it's too late.  (Note, that's not a quote or even
a paraphrase, more like my interpretation of the gist of Sagan's
statement.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #180    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 180

Today's Topics:
	       SPACE Digest V1 #178  [VOYAGER and friends]
			   My Favortie Rings  
		    But what do we do for an Encore?  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 August 1981 23:24-EDT
From: Ian G. Macky <GREN at MIT-MC>
Subject:  SPACE Digest V1 #178  [VOYAGER and friends]
To: SPACE at MIT-MC


Do I believe my eyes...?

        Since then, JPL has opened the solar system to human exploration.
    Its credits include fly-bys, orbiting flights and landings on six
    bodies in the solar system (Mercury, Venus, the Earth's moon, Mars,
    Jupiter and Saturn).
    ^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^

...just precisely HOW do you land on a gas giant?

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 1981 0000-PDT
From: POURNE@MC
To:   space at MIT-MC  

    The planetary soceity concert with John Williams
conducting was an enormous success, with most of the JPL mission
staff present; the reception afterwards had Jerry Brown and
entourage, several congresscritters, and even a county
supervisor (it is a little known fact that an LA county
supervisor is one of the most powerful officials in the world,
answerable to damn few).  Interest in space was apparrent.

The NET is very flakey tonight and I keep getting glitches in
what I send. More another time. Thanks for all the responses to
earlier imbecilities.



------------------------------

Date: 01 Sep 1981 0232-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: My Favortie Rings  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n097  1944  30 Aug 81
BC-ART-08-31
    By William Hines
    (c) 1981 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)
    PASADENA, Calif.-As Voyager 2 bade farewell to Saturn and set out
through uncharted space toward Uranus, science gave way to art in the
minds of some who have been following the spacecraft's progress.
    Ernest Franzgrote, a member of the systems technology and advanced
projects group at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, drew a design that
has become Voyager's unofficial logo.
    Looked at right side up, the logo reads ''Goodbye Saturn.'' Turned
upside down, it reads ''Hello Uranus''-the planet that Voyager will
pass in January, 1986, en route to Neptune in August, 1989.
    Meanwhile, M. Mitchell Waldrop, a reporter for Science magazine,
turned songwriter and summarized the Voyager findings about Saturn's
rings in lyrics to be sung to the tune of ''My Favorite Things''
(footnotes give a fuller explanation for those who have not followed
the Voyager mission closely):
    
    Shepherds herd F-rings (1) with never a breather,
    Cassini's not empty and Encke's (2) not either,
    Spokes (3) race around borne on magnetic wings (4),
    Saturn's got some of my favorite rings!
    
    Where are the moonlets (5) and where are the braidlets? (60)
    Whatever happened to apsidal wavelets? (7)
    Jovian magnetotail (8), where is thy sting?
    Yes, Saturn's got some of my favorite rings!
    
    Funding cutbacks! Canceled missions! (9)
    Shuttle's (10) driving me mad!
    But then I remember my favorite rings,
    And then I don't feel so bad!
    
    1) The faint F-rings, discovered in 1979, were found by Voyager 1 to
be kept in place by the gravitational influence of two small moons
that have been termed ''shepherding satellites.''
    2) The Cassini and Encke divisions in Saturn's ring system have been
found not to be empty, as Earth-based observations suggested before
Voyagers 1 and 2 got to Saturn and got a really close look.
    3) Strange features in Saturn's bright B-ring that are radial
instead of circular, and sweep around Saturn as the rings rotate,
have been named ''spokes.''
    4) The spokes are believed to be created by magnetic influences on
extremely fine dust particles in the rings.
    5) The complex structure of Saturn's rings revealed by Voyager 1 was
thought to be caused by gravitational action of small moons embedded
in the rings, but Voyager 2 showed that these assumed moonlets do not
exist.
    6) Pictures from Voyager 1 indicated that the F-ring was ''braided''
in some fashion that scientists could not explain, but Voyager 2
showed that the braiding was a photographic illusion.
    7) Before Voyager, theory suggested that the rings would be pulled
into an elliptical shape by the gravity of distant moons, and that
this would be noticeable as little disturbances in the rings at
points called the apsides. This was not seen.
    8) Voyager 2 discovered that the long, cometlike tail of planet
Jupiter's powerful magnetic field extends over 400 million miles,
well beyond the orbit of Saturn, at times engulfing that planet. But
the ''Jovian mag-netotail'' seems to have no influence on Saturn, its
rings or its moons.
    9) Reagan administration economies have reduced funding for space
and several projected missions have been canceled or delayed.
    10) The space shuttle, which will make its second flight in October,
is widely blamed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for causing the
''funding cutbacks (and) canceled missions.''
    END
    
nyt-08-30-81 2245edt
***************



------------------------------

Date: 01 Sep 1981 0233-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: But what do we do for an Encore?  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n096  1936  30 Aug 81
BC-STAR-08-31
    By William Hines
    (c) 1981 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)
    PASADENA, Calif. - Uranus in 1986 and Neptune in 1989 are the only
heavenly bodies that Voyager 2 is likely to encounter for the next
third of a million years or so.
    Charles E. Kohlhase, who plotted the trajectories of both Voyager 1
and Voyager 2 for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory here, said Sunday
that Voyager 2 will pass within 1.2 light years (7,200,000,000,000
million miles) of an obscure star called Ross 248 in the
constellation Andromeda about 40,000 years after leaving the solar
system.
    A more spectacular encounter would occur 328,000 years later when
the spacecraft passes within 4,800,000,000,000 miles of Sirius, the
brightest star in the heavens, he added.
    Kohlhase said that because Ross 248 emits periodic bursts of
high-energy radiation and Sirius is part of a double-star system,
neither is likely to support life.
    Voyager 1, which passed Saturn last November and headed northward
out of the solar system, is more likely to encounter life, Kohlhase
noted. Its next encounter, also in 40,000 years, will be with a star
called AC793888 in the constellation Camelopardis, at a distane of
1.6 light years (9,600,000,000,000 miles).
    This star, Kohlhase said, is an ''aging'' object about one-third the
size of our sun and is a ''good candidate'' for the distinction of
possessing a life-supporting planet.
    END
    
nyt-08-30-81 2238edt
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Sep-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #181    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 181

Today's Topics:
			  Jupiter's magnetotail
	      Clipping Service - A Night on A Bear Mountain
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  1 September 1981 1149-EDT (Tuesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Jupiter's magnetotail
Message-Id: <01Sep81 114902 DS30@CMU-10A>

If the Saturnian system was not affected by the Jovian magnetotail, was
that because it wasn't in the magnetotail, or because its own 
magnetic environment is too strong?

------------------------------

Date:  31 August 1981 19:53 edt
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Clipping Service - A Night on A Bear Mountain
To:  space at MIT-AI


Warning -- The following message is long. Reading without adequate
preparation may be hazardous to your mailer.

[This item captures the atmosphere (?) of present observational
astronomy so well, I think it deserves to be reproduced -- PLS]

From the Friday, August 28, 1981, edition of the Phoenix Gazette, by
Jon Franklin, Field News Service.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

		      Drama After Dark

	    Astronomers beg for a night at Kitt Peak

    
    
    "Its 156-inch mirror is so powerful that, if pointed toward New
    York City, it would allow astronomers to read the newsprint as it
    rolled off the presses in the New York Daily News building."
    
		    --------------------

Kitt Peak, Arizona -- The mountain rises sharply out of the Sonora
Desert and the road to the summit winds back and forth, back and
forth, skirting the cliffs and crossing the passes. The air thins.
The government van groans and rattles as the driver downshifts.

    The astronomers in the rear of the van are silent, preoccupied.
Some have come halfway around the world for one or two precious
nights on the mountain, and the thoughts that absorb them are not
related to the stark beauty of the Arizona terrain.

    As the vehicle lurched around the hairpin turns, some of the
scientists cradle odd-shaped instruments in their arms, protecting
them from the vibrations of the van. Some of the instruments are
squarish, with round protuberances, and others are roundish, with
square protuberances. They have dials and small wires.

    Each instrument is identified with a stenciled name, like
"Herman" or "Sally".

    Finally the van tops a high pass and, for the first time, the
glittering white domes come into full view.  The Mayall telescope,
rising 20 stories above the granite summit, dominates the other,
lesser domes that lie scattered along the mile-high ridge.

    The van loops around the Mayall telescope and follows the road
back along the ridge, finally stopping in front of the administrative
and dormitory complex. The astronomers disembark carefully, clutching
their instruments.

    The look uneasily at the sky. It's clear ... but is it clear
enough? Is that a quickening wind? Will it blow dust? Will this be a
lucky night, or will they go home with nothing?

    Here at Kitt Peak National Observatory, the odds against
atmospheric distortion are relatively high: 50-50.

    For the astronomers on the van, that's not good enough. On the
other hand, their odds are better than at most other observatories,
and astronomers are beggers, not choosers.

    They carry their instruments inside and lay them carefully on the
beds. The instruments safe, they return for their bags.

    The astronomers applied for their few precious telescope hours by
means of a complex request to the Association of Universities for
Research in Astronomy. That group farmed out the request to a
committee of top scientists.

    For each successful request to use the big Mayall telescope,
three others are rejected.

    After they unpack, the astronomers congregate for the walk to the
mess hall, worrying to one another. The wind is definately coming up,
and the weatherman says snow. Snow! Damn the weatherman, damn the
snow, damn the atmosphere.

    A maintenance man tells the group that, after years on the
mountain, he's quit believing in weathermen. His comment gives the
scientists cause to hope.

    If the maintenance man is right, the odds are high that one of
the scientists will discover something tonight ... probably by
accident. The universe is so poorly explored, and the Kitt Peak
telescopes are so powerful, that with the approval of the committee
and a night of clear air, every astronomer is a discoverer.

    Kitt Peak's collection of telescopes and instruments may
represent the most sophisticated optical astronomy installation
anywhere in the world.

    Though a 50-50 chance of good seeing seems small, astronomers
searched for years before settling on this specific peak, high in the
clear air of southern Arizona. Observatory experts say the seeing
here is as good, or better than, anywhere on Earth.

    The rub is that nowhere on Earth is the seeing good. Since the
days of Galileo, it's been atmospheric conditions and not telescope
size that has limited scientists' chances of understanding stars,
nebula, galaxies, quasars, and the universe they compose.

    Galileo, the first man to point a telescope at the heavens,
didn't have much trouble.  But he was using a small, low-powered
telescope, just big enough to reveal the craters of the moon and the
moons of Jupiter.

    That was enough to get him excommunicated by the Catholic Church,
but the real science would come later, with bigger and better
telescopes, like the 156 inch Mayall reflector atop the Kitt Peak
capstone.

    As the early astronomers build ever larger telescopes, they
encountered two problems that never have been adequately solved.
First, the faraway objects those telescopes were built to find were
vastly dimmer than the moon and planets.

    Seen directly through the eyepiece, most of the universe is too
dim to register on the human retina. As telescopes grew more
powerful, the only way an astronomer could really see what his
instrument was pointing at was to take a photograph using a long time
exposure.

    The astronomer who wants to take a photograph of a dust nebula in
the Milky Way, for instance, may need to spend the entire precious
night for that one time exposure. And if the night is interrupted by
a rainstorm, he will return home with nothing.

    Worse, telescopes capable of magnifying a quasar to a detectable
size also magnify the air above the telescope. If the upper
atmosphere is turbulent, it becomes a smear of light when viewed
through a medium-sized telescope.

    If the stars are twinkling, a large telescope is useless. And the
Mayall telescope is very large.

    Its 156 inch mirror is so powerful that, if pointed toward New
York City, it would allow astronomers to read the newsprint as it
rolled off the presses in the New York Daily News building.

    The telescope is so powerful that it can produce photographs of
galaxies so far away that the light it captures began its trip before
the sun was born.

    On the other hand, it is so sensitive that a brisk breeze, by
distorting the air, can wipe that galaxy out of the sky and leave the
astronomer with nothing but a smudge of light for a cold night's
effort.

    Historically, the astronomers' quest for bigger telescopes has
led to a more mundane search for ever better seeing conditions in
increasingly high and remote areas.

    In the early 1950's, before beginning construction of a national
observatory, experts studied the mountains of California, Colorado,
and Arizona, looking for the calmest air and the clearest weather.
California air they rejected quickly, and later they decided that
Colorado, despite the ski resorts, wouldn't do.

    When the choice narrowed to two mountain ranges in Arizona, the
astronomers mounted small, remotely controlled telescopes at each
site so the quality of the seeing could be monitored. A white tower
that contained one such battery of instruments is still visible on
the north flank of Kitt Peak.

    Though this mountaintop was the best they found, it still wasn't
good enough, and it still wasn't really 50-50. Astronomers developed
sophisticated instruments to minimize the dancing of the images and
to extract information from distorted light. Only in that fashion
could they even the odds.

    As they drink their coffee and await the night, the astronomers
worry aloud, but that is not the same thing as complaining. Optical
astronomy is a lottery. They learned to accept that as graduate
students.

    "It boils down to luck," muses one of the waiting scientists.
"Sure you have good questions. But when it comes down to what you
see, there's so little time, so little is known, the seeing is so
unpredictable .. you can find anything.

    "If you get enough telescope time, you'll discover something
important, and you know that, so you keep writing proposals and
begging for time and when you get it your're embarrassingly
greatful."

    Logically, the astronomers might sleep as the await the night,
but most settle for catnaps as they check and recheck their
instruments. The mountain maintenance men issue down-filled parkas
and reassure the astronomers about the fallibility of meteorologists.

    Sunsets are spectacular in the Sonora Desert, and this evening is
a classic, with smears of red, orange, purple, and brown dominating
the western sky.  But the beauty brings baleful stares from the
astronomers.  A pretty sunset means there is dust in the air, and damn
the dust, and damn the air, and let it be pretty some other night.

    The sunset disappears as the sky turns to dark blue, then black.
The instruments like Herman and Sally are attached to the telescopes
now, and jacketed with liquid nitrogen to keep their delicate
electronic innards static-free. Wisps of fog from the vaporizing
collant drift through the observatories, mingling with the foggy
breath of the astronomers.

    Now, finally, the big domes grind around on steel rails and the
shutters clatter open. Hand-me-down jeeps and pickups that once
served the Army now chug back and forth between the domes, moving
without lights, slowly, their drivers leaning over the steering
wheels for a surer view of the white centerline that will keep them
clear of the cliff's edge.

    Inside the Mayall dome, dim amber bulbs outline the stairsteps
and handholds. The clock motors whine softly as the delicately
balanced telescope searches for a star.

    In a high, warm, computerized control room, the astronomer paces,
and his sense of humor begins to erode. Fog has been reported in the
valley. Damn the fog.

    The telescope operator gives computerized instructions to the big
instrument and dome, avoiding conversaton with the touchy scientist.
It's not the technician's fault. He's responsible for the telescope,
not the weather.

    Kitt Peak hands the keys of the smaller telescopes over to the
visiting astronomers, but the big Mayall is too complex to be trusted
to outsiders. The Mayall is worth millions, and can't be replaced,
and if the visiting astronomer needs to do something with his hands,
he is free to bite his fingernails.

    Outside, on a narrow catwalk that runs around the Mayall dome 18
stories above the peak, an astronomer grips the frigid railing to
steady himself against the wind. His eyes go up, to the clear, hard
stars, and then down, to the valley below.

    There is fog, all right, and it's crawling up the passes.

    Inside, the clock ticks away the minutes, Universal Time, and a
computer printer chatters in the background. The astronomer collapses
into an ancient, high-backed chair, patched with silver duct tape.

    A television monitor shows the starfield in reverse, black dots
on a white field. As the telescope moves in response to the
operator's fingers on the keyboard, crosshairs settle on the star
that the astronomer came to study.

    Is that the dome howling?? When the wind makes the dome howl it
is observatory policy to shut down.

    No, that noise is something else, something routine from the
innards of the dome, a hydraulic sound, nothing to worry about. Quit
worrying, the operator says, calm down, cool it.

    The astronomer rocks in the chair and glares at the metal wall.

    How about the fog? Where's the damn fog??

    The operator's fingers play across the computer keypad. The
operator doesn't reply.

    The light from the star streams through the slit in the dome and
down the open latticework that supports the lenses, mirror, and
instruments. It bounces off the 156-inch main mirror and is reflected
upwards, then downwards, then sideways, focusing finally into a small
opening in the precious instrument the astronomer brought with him.

    In the innards of the computer, the magnetic data pack whirrs.

    The astronomer stares at the numbers flicking across the readout
windows. Few astronomers use film any more. Instruments like Sally
and Herman collect data instead, and the astronomer takes it home
with him to analyze, and to find out if he discovered anything on
purpose or by accident.

    It's a race now, with the fog.

    The fog climbs the passes and the numbers flicker. The astronomer
is focused on the numbers, absorbed by them. He seems not to breathe.

    For the moment, the seeing is good, the stars are hard, and the
numbers feed onto the precious tape and the precious seconds tick
away their Universal Time and the telescope motors whir as the big
mirror tracks the star. A private thought flickers through the
astronomer's mind, and he grins.

    Outside, the fog climbs.

    The operator's telephone rings and he picks it up and listens.
The fog has reached the base of the observatory.

    "OK," the operator says. He delays, for the moment, relaying the
information to the astronomer.

    The numbers play across the monitors. The astronomer sits,
transfixed. Occasionally, the operator touches the keyboard. The
telephone rings again. the operator listens, and hangs up.

    "Fog," he says, and his fingers play across the board.

    The dome responds instantly, gears grinding as the shutter
rattles across the big slit. The numbers stop flowing and the
astronomer jumps up.

    Just a few more minutes?? Thirty seconds???

    Inside each minuscule droplet of fog, there is a mote of dust. If
the fog settles onto the mirror, the dust will remain when the water
evaporates, and the mirror will have to be cleaned.  It can only be
cleaned once or twice before the telescope must be shut down, the
mirror removed, and the surface retreated.

    A few more minutes, come on, just a moment more?

    "Over my dead body," says the operator.

    The astronomer stands, stares at the wall for a moment, and
shrugs. It is a lottery, and he lost.

    Perhaps the numbers already collected will be enough, perhaps
there will be something unexpected ... at least he won't return with
nothing.

    He shrugs. The universe will be there next year. Maybe he can get
more time. Damn the fog.

    All down the ridge the observatory domes close, protecting the
mirrors from the night fog and the grit it contains. The astronomers
sit and fidget.

    Damn the fog. Maybe it will lift.

    Several of the astronomers navigate the dark night roads toward
the mess hall, to console themselves with mugs of cocoa and badly
chipped bowls of chicken soup. The conversation piece is the universe.

    Are there planets around other stars? Is there a huge black hole
in the center of the Milky Way? How do new suns form in the dust
clouds, and how do old ones die? Are quasars really distant and old?
Or are they close, and small, and violent?

    How did the universe begin, and how will it end?  Will it keep
expanding, until there is nothing but space?  Or will the atoms that
make up the observatory, the astronomers, the mountain, and the
Earth, and the stars, and the galaxies come flying together with
unthinkable force to generate another big bang?

    The universe is so large, and time is so long, and astronomers
live so briefly and damn the fog.

    In the morning, by tradition, the big domes swing around to face
the rising sun. The operators power down the computers and the
scientists drain the liquid nitrogen out of their instruments.
Droplets of the nitrogen skitter, boiling across the cold observatory
floor.

    The van parks by the dormitory, and the astronomers wait for the
passengers to disembark. Despite the fog, they tell each other, they
salvaged something. A photograph, or a few million bits of data, or,
sitting in front of a cup of coffee, an idea.

    Last night's observers watch, enviously, as tonight's observers
climb out of the van. Then last night's observers get aboard and
fasten their seat belts.

    The van moves forward into a U-turn, loops around the Mayall dome
and grinds down the mountain in second gear.

    The astronomers travel in silence, ignoring the unearthly saguaro
cactus and the gnarled mesquite. For a while, the Mayall dome is
visible, as a speck of white atop the receding mountains. Finally, it
disappears in the distance.

		 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #182    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 182

Today's Topics:
			 article about Kitt Peak
			 Re: SPACE Digest V1 #181
				 Kit Peak
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  2 Sep 1981 1020-PDT
From: John Redford <icl.redford at SU-SCORE>
Subject: article about Kitt Peak
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: icl.redford at SU-SCORE

No, the 156 inch Mayall telescope could not read the newprint as it came
off the presses in New York.  The minimum resolution of a telescope (in
radians) is about l/D where D is the diameter of the telescope and l
is the wavelength of the light that it's using.  In order to read letters
three millimeters high three thousand kilometers away the telescope mirror
would have to be about 500 meters across (with visible light).
-------

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 1981 10:30 PDT
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V1 #181
In-reply-to: Schauble.Multics's message of 31 August 1981 19:53 edt
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

Let's not get too carried away.  The maximum resolution of a 156 inch
mirror, ignoring atmospheric distortion, at the distance of New York from
Arizona is about 1 1/2 feet.  They must use very large print on the Daily
News.

I think exciting articles like this are great for promoting astronomical
interest, but I wish they would be more accurate.  When the public
discovers glaring errors, they may lose interest.

/Don


------------------------------

From: JMTURN@MIT-AI
Date: 09/02/81 23:33:23
Subject: Kit Peak

JMTURN@MIT-AI 09/02/81 23:33:23 Re: Kit Peak
To: space at MIT-MC

And you wondered why they're so hyped about the Space Telescope...

					James


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #183    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 183

Today's Topics:
		    Another one bites the dust.....   
			    Kitt Peak article
				Phoebe   
			   My Favortie Rings  
		      Speculations on F-ring brading
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 04 Sep 1981 1006-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Another one bites the dust.....   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

One of the more prominent space advocacy groups, Delta Vee, is no more.
Apparently, the entire Board of Directors resigned earlier this week.
I don't know exactly why all this happened, but there are rumors that
there has been some hanky-panky with the Viking and Halley Fund money
on the part of the President and Executive officers.  Delta Vee, as you
may recall, was a non-profit corporation formed to oversee the Viking
and Halley Fund. Sigh...

				Ad Astra..I guess,

					-- Tom



------------------------------

Date:  4 Sep 1981 1207-CDT
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Kitt Peak article
To: space at MIT-MC

	The hyperbolae about the telescope resolution aside, it was
an excellent article.. just the kind to spark public attention to
the reality of scientific research and perhaps dispell the folds of
legend and stereotyping around the astronomer.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 04 Sep 1981 1531-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a236  1437  04 Sep 81
AM-Voyager-Saturn, Bjt,550
Saturn's Most Distant Moon May Be Captured Comet
By KATHY HORAK
Associated Press Writer
    PASADENA, Calif. (AP) - Voyager 2, taking the first closeup photos
of Saturn's most distant moon, provides fresh evidence that dark
Phoebe may be a captured comet, scientists said Friday.
    The photos show the moon rotating backwards compared with the
planet's other 16 moons, strengthening existing theories that Saturn's
gravitational pull may have pulled a comet off course and into orbit,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory spokesman Alan Wood said.
    The photos of Phoebe are the last that Voyager 2 will transmit to
Earth until December 1985, when the one-ton craft takes the first
close look at Uranus. But Wood said data already received from Saturn
and several other of its moons will take scientists quite a while to
figure out.
    At its closest encounter with Phoebe, at 10:51 p.m. EDT Friday,
Voyager would be within 1.3 million miles of it before continuing on
to Uranus and finally Neptune in 1989. The craft was 6.025 million
miles beyond Saturn at 3 p.m. Friday, Wood said.
    The first photos of Phoebe - orbiting 8.047 million miles from the
ringed planet - arrived here at 11:59 p.m. EDT Thursday; the last were
to be transmitted at 12:13 a.m. Saturday.
    Wood said they were ''not the clearest images in the world'' and
will require computer processing to reveal details of the
90-mile-diameter moon.
    Phoebe's small size and great distance foiled instantly clear
images, Wood said.
    ''They can tell they're seeing features there. You would expect them
to be impact layers of one kind or another, but we really don't know
what the surface is like yet,'' he said.
    Voyager's rotating camera platform, which had jammed as the craft
passed behind Saturn on Aug. 25, has been working smoothly since
engineers freed it by high-torque swiveling, he said. The problem had
threatened to cancel the Phoebe fly-by.
    But scientists plan a barrage of tests on the 266-pound platform
beginning next Tuesday to ensure full operation above Uranus.
    Wood said it now appears a mechanical problem caused the platform to
stick, rather than collisions with space debris.
    ''It seems similar to the problem with the platform on Voyager 1,
which got stuck but eventually worked out with use,'' he said.
''Foreign matter seems to be stuck in the gear box - perhaps a piece
of cloth.''
    Engineers should be certain of the problem by Wednesday, he said.
    Phoebe's composition could help explain the two-tone color of
another Saturn moon, Iapetus.
    ''One of the theories about the black color on the leading edge of
Iapetus is that material could come from material blasted off
Phoebe,'' Wood said. ''If it turns out that Phoebe is indeed the dark
body it appears, that would be good source for debris.''
    Voyager 2's sister ship, Voyager 1, did not photograph Phoebe when
it passed Saturn three years ago because the moon's distance prompted
scientists to concentrate on ''other priorities,'' Wood said.
    Voyager 2's cameras could photograph Phoebe once every 25 minutes,
generating 300 photos during the 25-hour rendezvous. But Wood said
they shared transmitting time with other instruments so the total
number of images would be less than that.
    ''A light-measuring instrument that measures amount of light
bouncing off Phoebe from the sun will tell us something about the
nature of the surface, and temperature readings will also help. But
right now it (Phoebe) looks very primitive,'' Wood said.
    
ap-ny-09-04 1735EDT
***************



------------------------------

Date: 04 Sep 1981 1531-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Phoebe   
To:   space at MIT-MC  


If Phoebe is really a captured comet, then a Saturn orbiter, or an expedition
to Phoebe could learn quite a bit about comets without having to actually
intercept or chase one.  And Saturn is in the neighborhood as well.  Sounds
like a real win to me!!



------------------------------

Date: 4 September 1981 21:43-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: My Favortie Rings  
To: OTA at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The theory that ring(let)s are pulled into ellipses IS true.  In the
places of lesser ring material, where an individual ringlet can assume its
optimal shape, its dynamic-equilibrium (stable orbit) location, without
bumping into neighboring ringlets, we HAVE observed a few elliptical ringlets
(in the Cassini division I seem to recall).  We've even observed clumping
of material, possibly into L-4 and L-5 regions (just guessing there).
But elsewhere there's so much ring material that there are hundreds of
intersecting (colliding) stable orbits, that can't co-exist; the only
stable configuration in such regions is a bunch of circular orbits of
uniform density, each individual ringlet not quite in its
individually-optimum (lowest-energy) state, but the ensemble in
the optimum overall state. [My personal theory.]  I predict on Uranus
where there is less total ring material, hence fewer collisions, thin
ringlets will often be noncircular.

------------------------------

Date: 5 September 1981 04:10-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Speculations on F-ring brading
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Attention (reply to a message from) OTA@SU-AI...

I wish we could get funding for a Saturn orbiter.  The Galileo will
sort of include an orbiter as part of the grand plan, but for Saturn
there's nothing that I know of planned for 10 years (i.e. the forseeable
future), sigh.  Remember when Bruce Dern went thru Saturn's rings
(just like Voyager did, only morso) in Silent Running? Imagine an
orbiter that matches orbit with the rings, maybe with slight
inclination so it dips above and below the ring plane crossing with
moderately small velocity relative to the ring itself.  Wouldn't that
be beautiful, seeing all those chunks of ice as it passed thru,
and then looking at the ensemble of rings from above and below
at other times?  I think TV stations would be willing to buy some
of it to use for sign-on/off.  It'd be great backdrop for space movies.
After a few months of this, gradually changing size of orbit (i.e.
changing distance from Saturn) to get close looks at ALL the ringlets,
it could then orbit and survey the various moons of Saturn.
Radar terrain mapping of Titan would be nice too. -- Anybody have
a guess how much this would cost? I sure wish we could fund it.

Meanwhile, regarding the idea of collecting a sample of lunar-polar
material, is this going to be unmanned, i.e. in JPL's ballpark, so
we can not only get the important samples but also keep JPL alive
so somebody will be around to receive and process the Voyager-2/Uranus
data we'll be getting in a few years?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #184    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 184

Today's Topics:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 September 1981 05:46-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Our nation is going to spend at least $15 billion to build a bunch of
cruse missiles.  Does anybody have on hand an estimate of how much JPL
would charge for measuring the water content of some lunar-polar dust
and rocks?  (Either measure in place, or return samples to Earth, whichever
is the best way.  I'm assuming unmanned trips of course.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Sep-81  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #185    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 185

Today's Topics:
			       Mailing list
		       The demise of Delta-Vee     
			    Saturn's ice moons
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 09/08/81 1259-EDT
From: GNC at LL
Subject: Mailing list
To: space @ mit-mc

  Please add me to your mailing list. My net address is gnc at mit-ll.
                                        Thanks,
                                         Joe Baldassini
-------

------------------------------

From: BRUC@MIT-ML
Date: 09/08/81 14:59:37
Subject: The demise of Delta-Vee     

BRUC@MIT-ML 09/08/81 14:59:37 Re: The demise of Delta-Vee     
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
	It is most discouraging to hear that Delta-Vee has disintegrated.
If the cause turns out to be corruption, that's even worse. I sent them $15
to show my support for a Halley's Comet mission, and I'm really upset that
it will be for nothing. I hope more definitive information about the
handling of their funds comes through so that appropriate action can be taken.

					Bob Bruccoleri


------------------------------

Date:  8 Sep 1981 2041-EDT
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: Saturn's ice moons
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: king at RUTGERS

	A couple of questions occured to me recently:

	Why is it necessary to resort to collisions to explain cracks
in Saturn's moons?  If the moon started out liquid, and it froze from
the outside in, wouldn't the expansion of the core break open the
crust and make these cracks?  I know the ice cubes in my freezer crack
occasionally during the freezing process.

	If an ice moon, even only partially frozen, is hit hard enough
by a meteorite to make a hole, the water from inside will NOT form a
new surface.  The surface will float on the core even if it looks like
a piece of Swiss cheese.  Everyone has seen this on terrestrial lakes.

	I'm looking foreward to reading replies.


-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #186    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 186

Today's Topics:
			     Ice moon cracks
			      Saturn's moons
			Saturn's moons (part two)
	  Urgent! Help save the Solar Electric Propulsion System
		    Another one bites the dust.....   
				   SEPS
	  Urgent! Help save the Solar Electric Propulsion System
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  9 September 1981 1050-EDT (Wednesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: king at rutgers
Subject:  Ice moon cracks
CC: space at mit-mc
Message-Id: <09Sep81 105024 DS30@CMU-10A>

During the "NASA News Network" coverage of the Voyager 2 flyby,
an astronomer described a big crack in one of the ice moons (which
one?) which covered a 270 degree arc.  He ascribed it to cracking
during freezing.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 1981 11:34:26-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: king at rutgers
Subject: Saturn's moons
Cc: space at mit-mc

   It was my impression that none of the moons were made of solid
ice (the \\rings// are supposed to be mostly ice, but they're much
smaller pieces); it's more a matter of how much water vapor was
available to agglomerate around a rocky core.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 1981 11:38:26-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: king at rutgers
Subject: Saturn's moons (part two)
Cc: space at mit-mc

   There is one moon which they are suggesting is a captured comet,
but that (as I recall) isn't one of the more spectacularly fissured
ones (at that temperature (given that it was something like 8 million
miles from Saturn) it probably wouldn't be pure water ice anyway;
I'd expect a fair amount of ammonia and/or methane, plus whatever other
trash goes into a comet).

------------------------------

Date: 10 September 1981 02:04-EDT
From: Richard M. Stallman <RMS at MIT-AI>
Subject: Urgent! Help save the Solar Electric Propulsion System
To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI, SPACE at MIT-AI

Before Friday afternoon (Washington time), call Western Union and ask to
send a public opinion telegram to Edward P.  Boland, Congressman from
Massachusetts, telling him "Support $4million funding for the Solar
Electric Propulsion System", or some paraphrase.

SEPS will be required for many future space missions requiring lots of
impulse but not necessarily quickly.  This includes any deep space mission
(Halley's Comet?), as well as transfering large payloads between earth
orbits.

The public opinion telegram costs about two dollars.  You can send one
even in the middle of the night, and charge it to your home phone.

Don't mention that you are an engineer, or that you work with computers,
or that you went to college, or any organization you are affiliated with.
Politicians are looking for the opinions of the "average man", and
discount anyone who they know is educated.

Please post this on your own system and tell everyone else where you work.
------------------------------

Date: 10 September 1981 02:45-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Another one bites the dust.....   
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	I would be very interested in any information on
precisely what happened with Delta Vee -- Viking and Halley
Funds.  This is not idle or morbid curiousity, since Mrs.
hubbard has several important projects, one of which at least
was to be managed by some of the Delta vee people. I'd not care
to be more specific, but I do have a strong need to know.

JEP

------------------------------

Date: 10 September 1981 03:25-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: SEPS
To: ota at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	SEPS was required for the Halley rendezvous mission, but
it was not and is not needed for the Halley flyby.

However, the Halley flyby needs a go-ahead NOW if it is to
happen. JPL MUST begin building spacecraft soon, meaning that
before end October they have to know that there is money in next
year budget for Halley mission. There probably won't be.

But SEPS is irrelevent to Halley mission.

SEPS, on the other hand, may be more important in the long run
than the Halley mission.  It is valuable in its own right.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 1981 0322-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

[Correction notice:
RMS sent a message to both SPACE and SF-Lovers regarding SEPS.  After
he sent it an error in it was called to his attention and we agreed on
the following for the corrected version to be sent out to SPACE.

	Thanks, Ted Anderson]

Date: 10 September 1981 02:04-EDT
From: Richard M. Stallman <RMS at MIT-AI>
Subject: Urgent! Help save the Solar Electric Propulsion System
To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI, SPACE at MIT-AI

Before Friday afternoon (Washington time), call Western Union and ask to
send a public opinion telegram to Edward P.  Boland, Congressman from
Massachusetts, telling him "Support $4million funding for the Solar
Electric Propulsion System", or some paraphrase.

SEPS will be required for many future space missions requiring lots of
impulse but not necessarily quickly.  This includes any deep space mission
(Halley's Comet?), as well as transfering large payloads between earth
orbits.

The public opinion telegram costs about two dollars.  You can send one
even in the middle of the night, and charge it to your home phone.

Don't mention that you are an engineer, or that you work with computers,
or that you went to college, or any organization you are affiliated with.
Politicians are looking for the opinions of the "average man", and
discount anyone who they know is educated.

Please post this on your own system and tell everyone else where you work.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Sep-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #187    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 187

Today's Topics:
			      Administrivia 
	In response to Richard Stallman's 'plea for help' message.
			      Saturn's moons
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 1981 1724-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Administrivia 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

My apologies for including the message from Richard Stallman twice.  My
automatic digesting tools got away from me.
	Ted Anderson



------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 1981 (Thursday) 1029-EDT
From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus)
Subject: In response to Richard Stallman's 'plea for help' message.
To:   space at MIT-MC

First I have serious objections to advertising and mass - communication
of messages such as that in principle.  I would be very disappointed if
the network turned into a giant-soap box with form-letter writers on
each node.  I ask people to think before they post such a message. Such
could become a bad trend.

As to the space mission, there are 4 or 5 spacecraft already going to see
the ship, and the only reason I can see the U S A going is for political
visibility.  I am not concerned over the 'loss' of information, since all
the crucial information from the fly-by will be shared by the French and
Japaneese.  The scientific community should be the least concerned over
that.

Some alternate arguments which do interest me are 'where does that 40M 
go now' ?  For other Space-related projects (shuttle, deep space instrumentation
or something else) I would not mind missing this 'one'.

Finally a comment: I have been in and around the United States capital for
some time, and what will interest you is that officals *do* listen to the
experts for informative objective commentary.  In fact they prefer it over
all the lobying that goes on down there.  A person with some expertise in
some area, willing and interested in telling one's congressman about the
consequences of some legislation is much more useful.

Hank


------------------------------

Date: 11 September 1981 03:05-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Saturn's moons
To: cjh at CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, king at RUTGERS

The density of most Saturnian moons is about 1.1 to 1.2; since
ice has a density of a bit less than one it's assumable that
there are small rocky cores (or leots of imbedded rocks?).
	This is inner moons. Titan is different.  

At encounter, Poul and Karen Anderson wore T shirts reading:

	WHADDA YOU MEAN, IMPOSSIBLE?

		THIS IS SATURN!!!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #188    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 188

Today's Topics:
			    Saturn's ice moons
			    Re: Saturn's moons
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 September 1981 08:17-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Saturn's ice moons
To: KING at RUTGERS
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Hmmm, if there isn't much gravity, just barely enough to hold the
ice-moon together, and it's half-frozen when the meteor burrows its way
into the moon making a deep penetration-cavern, maybe as the moon resumes
its freezing, the pressure inward as the zone of frozen water pushes
inward will force the remaining water outward, and instead of cracking
the existing ice globally it will find the point of least resistance,
the penetration-cavern, and simply flow out to the surface thru it?
Gravity being low, it'll flow up to the top of the ice and make a
new surface instead of insisting on floating the ice to the top.
(I.e. if gravity keeping the water from coming out the hole is less
than the cohesive strength of the existing ice, the cohesive strength
holds and the water wins out over gravity.)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 1981 09:53:24-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: Saturn's moons
Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, king at RUTGERS

In response to your message of Fri Sep 11 03:05:48 1981:

   Exactly so. A little figuring suggests that the rocky core could
represent 4-7% of the total \\volume//, which works out (for a spherical
moon to make the model simple) to 34-41% of the radius. This indicates
that a model based on a large blob of water solidifying from the
outside in is unlikely to be correct; it seems more reasonable either
that the rocky core developed first, then collected the more volatile
water after the rock had cooled off, or (possibly) that the whole
mass of minerals and water accreted inhomogeneously.
   I suspect that a largish sphere of liquid H2O freezing from the outside
in would break up completely (not simply fissuring) long before it congealed,
but I don't have enough figures handy on the density and strength of ice to
be sure.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #189    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 189

Today's Topics:
		    Private Rocketry takes some heat  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 1981 2155-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Private Rocketry takes some heat  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n078  1734  11 Sep 81
BC-MISSILES 2takes
(EXCLUSIVE, 10 p.m. EDT Embargo)
By JUDITH MILLER
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
     WASHINGTON - The Reagan administration has become concerned that
rockets being developed commercially for ostensibly peaceful purposes
could also be used to deliver nuclear or chemical warheads.
    The immediate focus of concern, according to administration
officials, is a West German company, Orbital Transport-und
Raketen-Aktiengesellschaft, or Otrag, which for two years has been
testing a low-cost rocket in Libya that it says is intended to put
weather or telecommunications satellites into orbit. American
intelligence and space agency officials, however, assert that the
rocket could be intended to have a military application.
    To address such issues, the informants said, an interagency task
force has been formed to study the spread of missiles and related
technology. It is composed of officials from intelligence agencies,
the State and Defense Departments and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
    Besides Otrag, several other foreign and American companies are
involved in the commercial development of rockets.
    Company representatives say their objective is to develop rockets
that could lift into orbit satellites with telecommunications or
other peaceful equipment more cheaply than NASA and thus contribute
to the commercial use of space technology. But American officials are
concerned about the possible use to which any privately made rockets
might be put.
    ''What we have here,'' Joseph S. Nye Jr., a former State Department
specialist, said of commercial rocket development, ''is a new
security problem, a form of advanced nuclear proliferation, that the
U.S. government has only begun to face.''
    Some officials here maintain that just as previous administrations
have pressed governments to act against the transfer of sensitive
nuclear technology, the Reagan administration should begin calling
for new international safeguards to limit the spread of components
for possible delivery systems.
    Other officials say there may be little that can be done to limit
the spread of either missiles or nuclear weapons other than trying to
exert pressure through diplomatic channels.
    Otrag, for example, shifted its test operations to Libya from Zaire
in 1979 after American, French and West German diplomatic pressure
led to a cancellation of its contract there.
    Intelligence officials here said they had received reports providing
what they described as new evidence that the company might be using
its test operations to mask efforts to sell military technology to
Libya, Pakistan, Iraq and other countries.
    Such statements were denied by Otrag's chairman of the board, Frank
Wukasch, who said in a telephone interview from company headquarters
at Munich, West Germany, that his concern was ''not making military
rockets.'' But he added that ''we talk to everyone in the world about
rocket technology with peaceful applications.''
    Intelligence and arms control officials here said one disquieting
feature of the Otrag operation in Libya was that much of it came
under Libyan military officers connected with Libya's atomic energy
program.
    According to some foreign and American intelligence analysts, the
West German company has been recruiting hundreds of technicians
recently to expand its launching site at Jarmah, in the Libyan
Sahara. The company is also said to be building additional
installations at Sebha in connection with what officials described as
Libya's efforts to develop a domestic ability to build rocket parts
and related technology.
    The analysts also asserted that Otrag had intensified efforts to buy
or build a rocket guidance system, the export of which is under
strict controls in the United States and West Germany.
    Both American space and intelligence alysts said their information
was that the West German company had not had much success so far with
its rocket. They said the company announced a partly successful
launching on March 1 but that another test conducted on May 17 was a
failure.
    Otrag is reported to be under severe pressure from the Libyan
government to make more progress, and Col. Moammar Khadafy, the
Libyan leader, is said to have warned that otherwise he might have to
reconsider funding for the program.
    As a result, officials here said, the company has intensified its
efforts to find additional foreign customers for its rocket and has
begun discussing relocating its operations, possibly in the
Philippines. This assertion, however, was dismissed by the company
chairman as ''complete nonsense.''
    American officials also reported that the United States, Egypt,
Morocco and other governments had privately urged West Germany to
restrict the company's operations.
    But a spokesman for the West German Embassy here said there was
little his government could do to restrict Otrag because it is a
private company. Its activities in Libya are said to be supported in
large part from a subsidiary on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia.
    Otrag was established in the mid-1970s by Lutz T. Kayser, an
aerospace engineer from Stuttgart, reportedly with $3 million in
capital. Described in West Germany as a development company, Ortag is
said to be backed by 1,400 private investors and an investment fund
of about $69 million.
    Other private companies in the field of commercial rocket
development include GCH Inc., of Sunnyvale, Calif., a company
financed by a group of 20 investors, most of them Texans.
    It is attempting to place satellites weighing up to 3,000 pounds
into orbits about 500 miles high by early 1983. Last month a rocket
blew up on its launching pad during a test of what is known as the
Percheron project, but company officials said it had resulted from a
minor technical problem that would not seriously impede the project.
    Charles Chafer, a spokesman for Space Services Inc., for which GCH
is developing the rocket, said the company built virtually all of its
own equipment from components purchased in the United States.
    ''But we won't export any of this equipment or technology,'' Chafer
added. ''Besides, our rocket would make a lousy missile. It takes so
long to fuel that it could be blown up on the pad long before it was
ever launched.''
    In addition to Percheron, the European Space Agency's Ariane rocket,
which is scheduled to launch a British satellite in November, is
expected to offer stiff competition for NASA in putting satellites
into orbit.
    Although developed by the agency formed by 11 European nations,
Ariane is being marketed mainly by a French company in which the
French government owns shares.
    Kenneth S. Pedersen, director of International Affairs for NASA,
said there were few legal restrictions to prevent private companies
from launching rockets and satellites. Among the ''very interesting
and unresolved'' questions, he said, are;
    ''should space launches be a government or private effort, or both?
What kind of government oversight mechanisms should be developed?
Should NASA have a specific regulatory role?'' l
    
nyt-09-11-81 2038edt
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Sep-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #190    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 190

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V1 #189    
			Dust not bitten after all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 1981 0821-EDT
From: G.RONNIE at MIT-EECS
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V1 #189    
To: OTA at SU-AI, SPACE at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 13-Sep-81 0752-EDT

Speaking of Private rocketry and violent uses, there is also a problem,
at least around here, with Model Rocketry (The engine-powered rockets
for ages 12 and up that use gun-power-type propulsion). There are
some kids around here that sit around during the day drawing up
little plans for how to put a nuclear warhead into one of these things,
and frankly it scares me a little (especially since some of these plans
look surprisingly feasable). 

 Beside the fact that these model rockets can be used for malicious
purposes, they are really very good. Some of them have multi-stages
and go as high as a couple of thousand feet, parachute and all! ~~
But you must be careful about how you use them. I built one two months
ago (incidentally, that was my last time) and all systems looked
go, but I had bought one of the really cheap little ones, just
to see how that worked. After it was up about ten feet, it started
spinning (and very rapidly I might add). Finally it ended up
pointing face-down and shot down right towards me, missing me by
inches and landing about an inch into the grass. 

 That is when I decided that was all for model rocketry.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 14 September 1981 01:59-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Dust not bitten after all?
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

	I called Eric Burgess tonight to ask about the story
that all the Directors of Delta Vee had quit.  (Eric is a
director.)
	"Not quite all," he said.  "I haven't quit."
	According to Eric there have been some policy
differences, particularly about expense accounts, and several of
the directors have resigned, but Delta Vee is alive and well,
and has his support.

Eric Burgess is a well known science writer, former science
editor of Christian Science Monitor, Fellow of Royal
Astronomical Society, co-author of a book with Bruce Murray, and
all-around good guy.
	He does not, he says, know much about Delta Vee
activities, and has been a "silent director" rather than an
active one, but he knows of no cause for alarm.

	

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Sep-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #191    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 191

Today's Topics:
			      Model Rocketry
			       observatory
			  Nuclear Model Rocketry
       In response to Henry Dreifus's response to Richard Stallman
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 1981 2256-EDT
From: G.KJB at MIT-EECS
Subject: Model Rocketry
To: space at MIT-MC

Hmm, that sounds similar to one of my experiences with model
rocketry.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 1981 10:27:56-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: observatory

   In an ironic footnote to the recent article on Kitt Peak, today's Boston
GLOBE has an editorial suggesting that the Air Force should find a location
further than the currently-planned 9 miles from KP for their new base
(they claim it will be limited daytime operations only, and if you
believe that I have this wonderful bridge that I've got to let go real
cheap.  . . .).

------------------------------

Date:  15 September 1981 18:46 edt
From:  Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Nuclear Model Rocketry
To:  "G.RONNIE@MIT-EECS" at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC
cc:  Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics

Ouch!  You have gored my private ox.

If your urchins can figure out how to make nuclear warheads weigh in at
under a pound, then you have grave problems indeed.  Model rockets
are limited to 453 grams before they become answerable to the FAA.  (Not
that a power-mad urchin would care, but the terminology "model rocket"
is well-controlled.) One could conceivably launch an overweight nuclear
warhead with available engine combinations, provided he didn't mind
being within about 100 yards of it when it went off.  Urchins would do
much better making their own steel-pipe rockets and mixing their own
propellants.  That way, they will take themselves out of action before
they get the chance to take others out.

I am disappointed to hear your first and only model rocket flight was a
flop.  Did you use a proper launcher, or just "set it on the grass and
light it?" Send me your address and I will send you some introductory
information which should help you get off the ground in no time.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 1981 1839-PDT
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: In response to Henry Dreifus's response to Richard Stallman
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

There is a very good reason for the US to do a Halley's mission.  Even
though other countries are sending probes, none of them will take very
good pictures of the thing.  The only one (I think) which is taking pictures
is a spin stablized spacecraft and takes images like Pioneer 10 and 11 did.
Since the encounter speed will be so high (since the comet is in a retrograde
orbit), this will really not return anything worth looking at. 

Also, a US probe could return much more science than any of the others.  Lets
face it, we have the most advance space technology and a Voyager class halleys
probe would be many orders of magnitude better than anything going there
so far.  Its absurd for the US not to have a Halley's mission (though it
doesn't look as if its going to happen).



				Alan
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #192    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 192

Today's Topics:
			      Model Rocketry
			   Halley's Mission   
			  Nuclear Model Rocketry
       In response to Henry Dreifus's response to Richard Stallman
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 1981 0936-PDT
Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL
Subject: Model Rocketry
From: BILLW at SRI-KL
To: space at MC
Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]16-Sep-81 09:36:54.BILLW>

Tavares's response agrees with my own experiences with model rockets.
Model rocket companies are quite proud if they can lift an egg to
1000 feet... and that was using a cluster of 3 or 4 engines. Anyone who
can make an egg sized nuke is dangerous with or without model rockets
to lift them.

  The only bad experience I have ever had with a comercial rocket kits
was (I think) due to a bad engine, and all that happened was that my
precious $6 + hours of work "Orbital Transport" landed on its nose, on
the ground, getting somewhat crunched, BEFORE the parachute came out.

(basically, there is supposed to be a delay between the time the
propellent is exhausted, and the time the parachute comes out -- In
this engine, the delay was WAY too long).  If your kit built first model
nosedived into the ground UNDER POWER, you must have done something
wrong.

Cheers
Bill W

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 1981 1006-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Halley's Mission   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

As I understand it, approval for a Halley's mission must be forth-coming
by about the end of October or else we won't have time to get the bird 
ready.  Perhaps it may be time for another letter campaign......?



------------------------------

Date: 17 September 1981 02:43-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Nuclear Model Rocketry
To: Tavares.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, G.RONNIE at MIT-EECS

	My son made his first model rocket some years ago and
launched it from the campus at Campbell Hall.  It rose
spectacularly, deployed the parachute, and vanished in the
general direction of the freeway. A week later it was returned
to us by mail, having lodged itself in a large truck which took
it to Northern california (our address was tucked inthe rocket.)
	The result was a large turnout of the student body to
watch, and a dictum from the school authorities proscribing any
more m,odel rocket launches from the campus.
	Ah well.

------------------------------

Date: 17 September 1981 02:53-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: In response to Henry Dreifus's response to Richard Stallman
To: KATZ at USC-ISIF
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	The US Halley encounter design has a shielded spacecraft
which approaches by looking in a mirror (as Perseus approached
the Medusa).  Because our navigation is much more precise, we
can be certain that we will see the LIGHTED side of the comet;
the Soviet and European probes CANNOT guarantee this; they will
also approach about ten times farther from the coma than ours
could.
	The approach closing speeds are collossal, and thus
require VERY precise platform stabilization to get decent
resolution (you gotta track to a very high degree of precision
since the relative speeds at closest approach are in the order
of 100 km a second); again we can do this and the others can't.
	The argument against Halley is that it buys new science
but little new capability; and if we have very scarce space
resources to invest, is Halley the best investment? For the same
price we could have a Lunar Polar resource survey probe to
search for water ice at the lunar poles; or even an asteroid
rendezvous as a resource survey.
	Not too long ago I had a conversation with Dave
Stockman. I urged Halley. He said:
	"Is it really worth borrowing money at 20% and paying
20% interest for a goodly time to come?  I don't have any money;
I merely have authority to borrow some at high interest rates;
and if we don't get the deficit down the interest rates will
stay up there.  Tell me why the Halley mission is worth
borrowing to pay for; why we shouldn't do something similar
later on when we have the economy in better shape."
	I have some answers to that, but the questions are
reasonable; and if you reply "You're borrowing to pay out for
salaries for a whole flock of HHS and D ed. employees who seem
to be less than useful, so why not for space?" his reply is
simple:
	"Get Congress to let me out of paying for those programs
and I guarantee I'll slice them; get me enough slicing authority
and I can even see investing more in the space program.  I'm not
against space, I'm just broke..."


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Sep-81  1229	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #193    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 193

Today's Topics:
			   Voyager 2 at Saturn
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 1981 1313-PDT
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Voyager 2 at Saturn
To: bboard at USC-ISIB, space at MIT-MC, sf-lovers at MIT-AI
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

OASIS presents:

			Voyager 2 at Saturn

			Richard P. Rudd
		Voyager Deputy Project Manager

		Saturday, September 26, 1981, 7:00 pm
	      California Musuem of Science and Industry
			Kinsey Auditorium

On August 25, 1981, the Voyager 2 spacecraft passed by the planet
Saturn at a distance of 63,000 miles.  At our September 26 general
meeting, Richard P. Rudd, deputy project manager for the Voyager mission
at JPL, will discuss the results of the mission and its contribution
to our understanding of the solar system.  He will show the latest mission
photos and explain the plans for Voyager 2's encounter with Uranus in
1986.  Join us for another exciting meeting soon after a Voyager encounter
similar to last November's presentation by David Morrison which drew nearly
500 people.


-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #194    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 194

Today's Topics:
			   Halley's Mission   
			      Model Rocketry
		 your msgs (model rocketry and Stockman)
			  Halley's -- nth reply
			   Halley's Mission   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 September 1981 08:11-EDT
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Halley's Mission   
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Yeah, but don't coordinate the mailing through here.  May I suggest
that people who want to work on such a letter-writing campaign write
their names and addresses into a file somewhere and then print each
his/her own copy.  Thereafter things can be done off the net.  

Thanxyou.
Oded

------------------------------

From: INSANE@MIT-AI
Date: 09/17/81 08:48:44
Subject: Model Rocketry

INSANE@MIT-AI 09/17/81 08:48:44 Re: Model Rocketry
To: SPACE at MIT-AI
  I, myself have been into model rocketry several years back, and I
have built many rockets, the majority of them flew without any hitches.
Sure, I had a few misfires and some spectacular nose-dives, but when I
examined the remain, it was clear that I was the one who had fouled it up.
  All of the rocket designs that come out have been extensively tested to
insure that the basic design is stable.
  On nuclear model rocketry, if someone can arm a model rocket,
get a big enough engine cluster (I'd say about 10 of Centuri's 'F'
or 'G' series engine, o multi-stage the thing, then I'D seriously doubt his
sanity, for, at best, he might be able to get a distance of a mile or two
out of it, and if I were he, I wouldn't like to get caught in the fallout.
  I have seen, however, people who would shoot foil covered rockets over 
military radar dishes, and launch a rocket engine with fins attached; an egg
glued on as a "warhead" (very messy and hard to remove from the roof of a
house).
         KEEP 'EM FLYIN'!
--INSANE

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 1981 10:36:38-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: your msgs (model rocketry and Stockman)
Cc: pourne at mit-mc

   Sounds like your son's school was run by twits; mine didn't shut us down
even after I built a Saturnian (from Estes plans---no kit then available)
with a sufficiently warped concealed launching lug that it got about 5
feet up before falling over and blowing the chute on the ground.
   Stockman has a point---but right now he could use some more support
cutting the military budget (which Reagan and Congress are going wild
with) rather than the services budgets.

------------------------------

Date: 17 September 1981 19:08-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Halley's -- nth reply
To: KATZ at USC-ISIF
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

If Halley's comet is more important scientifically than any other comets,
than it's a shame we're not going to make the best of it, returning USA
high-quality Voyager-class images and other data.  But I suspect it's
just the most popular comet, not the most interesting scientifically.
I wouldn't mind letting the three other probes get Pioneer-class images
this decade and then we get Voyager-class images of some other comet.
It might even be useful to get Pioneer-class stuff first so we know
what to look for when we send the Voyager-class probe to another comet.
Meanwhile when are we going to get off our duff and send ANYTHING to
the Earth-crossing asteroids?  (See L-5 for August for this proposal.)
I'd rather see 3 probes to Halley and 1 to asteroids, than 4 to Halley
and none to asteroids.

------------------------------

Date: 18 September 1981 04:21-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Halley's Mission   
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	ACCORDING to Brue Murray of JPL, it is sufficient that
by mid November they KNOW that Halley Mission will be funded in
the following year budget.  Without that knowledge, they will
have no choice but to disperse some of the teams and they will
be unable to do the construction of the spacecraft.

Whether the Halley mission is justified is debatable; certainly
it would be if there were plenty of money, but what should be
scrubbed to pay for Halley?  Perhaps nothing need be, in which
case we can all be for Halley mission.


------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #195    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 195

Today's Topics:
			    Interesting comets
		      military space and budget cuts
			  Halley's -- nth reply
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 September 1981 1321-EDT (Saturday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: rem at mit-mc
Subject:  Interesting comets
CC: space at mit-mc
Message-Id: <19Sep81 132126 DS30@CMU-10A>

The most interesting comets are those with large orbital periods, since
they have not lost so much of their material to close solar encounters.
he problem with long-period comets is in knowing their orbital parameters
long enough in advance to launch a probe.  Do you know of any other
good comets besides Halley's?

------------------------------

Date: 20 September 1981 02:21-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: military space and budget cuts
To: cjh at CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC

	The idea is to show how, by investing in space, the
entire defense establishment can be made smaller and MORE
effective in its primary job of insuring peace.
	This is what General D. Graham has been saying, and he
now has a resolution of support from the Senate.
	The problem is two fold: first, a number of pro-space
people are very anti-military.  "We will carry no frontiers into
space," many of us said back in the early 50's (before we could
carry ANYTHING into space); and we've tried to stick with that
noble ideal well past the point at which it's clear that
frontiers and weapons are already there.  (The Soviets tested a
nuclear satellite killer in 1963...)
	Second, most of the pro-space people in the US Air Force
were forced into early retirement, or were not promoted (and
thus forced out) back in the days of the Schriever vs LeMay war;
the result is that the Air Council is pretty well anti-space;
even when Hans Mark was Secretary of the Air Force he wasn't
able to get much changed in the Pentagonal funny farm.
	And, if those weren't bad enough, there are two more
problems: most space military systems are highly classified, and
thus most members of Congress, and nearly all the public,
haven't heard of them.
	Yet: it's not all death rays and killer satellites.
Adequate warning, reliable fail-safe warning, could go far
toward stabilizing the balance of terror.  For that matter, most
space weapons are likely to aid the DEFENSIVE side of the
equation rather than the offensive; it's hard to improve on
large H-bombs for pure destructiveness.  Thus an "arms race" in
space could well prove to be a powerful influence for stability
and peace.

	What must be done is to get a rational strategic plan
that mixes "cheap" quick fixes to get us past the next few years
along with a sane program of high-risk high technology systems
that let us get back into what Possony and I called "the
Decisive War" in our STRATEGY OF TECHNOLOGY some years ago.  We
can drive the technological war toward bloodlessness and get
rich in the bargain, but somebody's got to show how to do it...

JEP

------------------------------

Date: 20 September 1981 02:23-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Halley's -- nth reply
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, KATZ at USC-ISIF

	Halley's is the "youngest" comet we have a complete
ephemeris on and thus have a chance of intercepting.

	Younger comets with more volatiles would be more
nteresting scientifically, but almost impossible to catch since
they are driven in part not be celestial mechanics but by "jet
propulsion" as pockets of gas warm up and jet out...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Sep-81  0824	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #198    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 198

Today's Topics:
		      military space and budget cuts
			   Shuttle problems   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 197

Today's Topics:
		      military space and budget cuts
		   Ground track for 2nd Shuttle flight
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 196

Today's Topics:
		      military space and budget cuts
			  Halley's -- nth reply
			  "Tree rings" on Titan?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 September 1981 02:21-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: military space and budget cuts
To: cjh at CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC

	The idea is to show how, by investing in space, the
entire defense establishment can be made smaller and MORE
effective in its primary job of insuring peace.
	This is what General D. Graham has been saying, and he
now has a resolution of support from the Senate.
	The problem is two fold: first, a number of pro-space
people are very anti-military.  "We will carry no frontiers into
space," many of us said back in the early 50's (before we could
carry ANYTHING into space); and we've tried to stick with that
noble ideal well past the point at which it's clear that
frontiers and weapons are already there.  (The Soviets tested a
nuclear satellite killer in 1963...)
	Second, most of the pro-space people in the US Air Force
were forced into early retirement, or were not promoted (and
thus forced out) back in the days of the Schriever vs LeMay war;
the result is that the Air Council is pretty well anti-space;
even when Hans Mark was Secretary of the Air Force he wasn't
able to get much changed in the Pentagonal funny farm.
	And, if those weren't bad enough, there are two more
problems: most space military systems are highly classified, and
thus most members of Congress, and nearly all the public,
haven't heard of them.
	Yet: it's not all death rays and killer satellites.
Adequate warning, reliable fail-safe warning, could go far
toward stabilizing the balance of terror.  For that matter, most
space weapons are likely to aid the DEFENSIVE side of the
equation rather than the offensive; it's hard to improve on
large H-bombs for pure destructiveness.  Thus an "arms race" in
space could well prove to be a powerful influence for stability
and peace.

	What must be done is to get a rational strategic plan
that mixes "cheap" quick fixes to get us past the next few years
along with a sane program of high-risk high technology systems
that let us get back into what Possony and I called "the
Decisive War" in our STRATEGY OF TECHNOLOGY some years ago.  We
can drive the technological war toward bloodlessness and get
rich in the bargain, but somebody's got to show how to do it...

JEP

------------------------------

Date: 20 September 1981 02:23-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Halley's -- nth reply
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, KATZ at USC-ISIF

	Halley's is the "youngest" comet we have a complete
ephemeris on and thus have a chance of intercepting.

	Younger comets with more volatiles would be more
interesting scientifically, but almost impossible to catch since
they are driven in part not be celestial mechanics but by "jet
propulsion" as pockets of gas warm up and jet out...

------------------------------

Date: 20 September 1981 15:37-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: "Tree rings" on Titan?
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

I came up with this idea this morning... Suppose it's true what some
scientists have speculated about Titan having rains of organic debris
that settle to the surface and build up layer after layer over the eons.
Perhaps the temperature of Titan's surface varies with the season, and
thus the density or some other characteristic of the deposits varies
with season.  Then maybe the deposits have alternating layers of
differing material, like tree rings.  Then we could drill into Titan's
surface and collect a sample, study the rings, and get a sort of history of
the longrange climate changes (if any) over the history of the moon.
At the least we could determine how many Titan-years the stuff has been
depositing and freezing.  If there were any global (solar-system) changes,
such as change in light output from the Sun or passing through a
gallactic cloud, we could correlate these changes between Titan's rings
and tree-rings on Earth (if the events were recent, of course, trees
don't live a billion years; although some fossils on Earth might extend
the chronology some). -- Any planetary scientists want to comment on
my idea?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************
------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 1981 1151-PDT
From: Barry Megdal <BARRY at CIT-20>
Subject: Ground track for 2nd Shuttle flight
To: space at MIT-MC

Does anyone have (or know where I can get) information on the ground
track for each of the orbits planned for the 2nd Space Shuttle mission?
I'm interested in monitoring shuttle communications, and as it is in
a low orbit, one needs to know approximately when it is overhead.
Many people have reported success in monitoring the 1st Shuttle
flight...I can look up the frequencies if anyone is interested.

Barry Megdal  (Barry@cit-20)
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************
------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 1981 1620-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Shuttle problems   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

For anybody that hasn't heard, a fuel line problem of some sort spilled
four gallons of nitrogen tetroxide fuel onto the hull of the Columbia.
This apparently loosened about 250 tiles.  Rockwell's space hotline
claims that the launch will NOT take place on Oct. 9 as was scheduled
but as of now, no new date has been set.



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #199    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 199

Today's Topics:
		      Intelligent Life in the Galaxy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Charles Lurio at MIT-SSL via markl at mit-ai@MIT-AI (Sent by MARKL@MIT-AI) 09/23/81 12:58:54
Date: 09/23/81 12:58:54
To: space at MIT-MC

A major part of the second round budget cuts at NASA will be 'deferment'
of Galileo.  Effectively this means the project is cancelled now but may
be revived no earlier than '85 budget cycle.  launch date could be in '87
but is more likely for '89 (if at all).  This news comes along the
grapevine from NASA HQ.

From the same source comes news which you may or may not already have
heard. There may be slow-downs in shuttle technology initiative programs
(e.g. use of composites in solid rocket boosters.) It also seems that NASA
will devote more time to refurbishing the shuttle after each flight rather
than waiting for major shuttle overhauls every dozen or so flights (as was
originally plannned for Columbia.)  NASA will then be able to ask for more
funding before each shuttle mission, with the excuse that without it, the
next mission won't fly. This last info comes via JSFC.


------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 1981 1149-PDT
From: DIETZ at USC-ECL
Subject: Intelligent Life in the Galaxy
To: space at MIT-MC

  There appears to be an interesting division developing in the SETI
(Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) crowd.  The dogma that has
grown up over the past 20 years is that there are 1E5 to 1E6
civilizations in the galaxy, most of which communicate with one
another by radio (the "Galactic Club").  This estimate is based on the
well known Drake equation which gives the number of civilizations,
ASSUMING that intelligent life forms evolve independently in different
star systems.

  This dogma is coming under severe attack by those who argue that
interstellar travel is possible.  The orthodox have assumed that very
high speeds (>.5c) must be attained before an interstellar trip is
feasible.  With mobile space colonies this objection is invalidated.
We already know how to design moderately fast colony ships (.01c)
using nuclear pulse propulsion.  Using our current nuclear stockpile
(1E5 Megatons) we can send 1000 people to a nearby star.

  We also know how to design small, fast probes.  The British
Interplanetary Society conducted a study from 1973 to 1978 in which
they designed an unmanned interstellar probe.  The probe uses D-He3
fusion (which yields almost all its energy in the form of fast charged
particles) ignited by electron beams.  The probe masses 54,000 tons,
50,000 tons of which is fuel.  Final velocity is .12-.13c, so the
probe takes 50 years to go to Barnard's star.  The biggest problem
with the ship is that the He3 has to be mined from the atmosphere of a
gas giant, which takes 50 years.

  The point of all this is that if there are 1E5 to 1E6 advanced
civilizations at least a few should have decided to colonize the
galaxy.  The time to colonize the galaxy is relatively insensitive to
how long it takes to travel between the stars and how long it takes to
build up the target system.  It comes out to about 10 million years (1
light year per century expansion rate).  This is 1/1000 the age of the
galaxy.  So, where are they?

  Even if you don't want to colonize the galaxy with people, you can
still colonize it with self reproducing machines.  Although we don't
know how to build these yet we probably will know within the next 100
years.  So, instead of searching the whole galaxy for radio you can
send out one probe and wait.  If they are smart enough they can
prepare planets for colonization, or seed dead planets with life.

  So, the dissenters argue that either there are either very few (<10)
occupied systems in the galaxy, or there are many (1E10-1E11). In the
second case detection should be easy, so we may know the answer soon.

-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #200    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 200

Today's Topics:
		      Intelligent life in the galaxy
		    Re: Intelligent life in the galaxy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 1981 1005-PDT
Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL
Subject: Intelligent life in the galaxy
From: BILLW at SRI-KL
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]24-Sep-81 10:05:30.BILLW>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 24 Sep 1981 0402-PDT

Foo on you.  All those numbers assume that intelligent life
forms elsewhere in the galaxy have psychologies similar enough to
our own such that:

  1) They have an interest in delveloping technology
  2) They have an interest in developing space technology
  3) They are interested in colonizing the galaxy

In my opinion, highly unlikely.

Bill W

------------------------------

Date:  24 September 1981 13:32 edt
From:  Janofsky.Tipi at MIT-Multics (Bill Janofsky)
Subject:  Re: Intelligent life in the galaxy
To:  BILLW at SRI-KL
cc:  space at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 24 September 1981 13:05 edt from BILLW

I'd like to add to BILLW's points a fourth:
  4) They have not decided that we're too bloody immature, as a race,
and quarantined this region of space to all traffic.

This may be more likely than any other explanation of the absence of
contact even though it sounds like science fiction. (And has been the
theme of numerous stories there.)
		Bill J.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #201    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 201

Today's Topics:
		      Intelligent Life in the Galaxy
	   Reasons advanced civilizations haven't contacted us
			   Where is everybody?
			 Shuttle damage updates  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 September 1981 12:13-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Intelligent Life in the Galaxy
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I fear the correct answer is that when intelligent life does evolve
and take over the planet it lives on and develop technology, within
a few centuries they discover thermonuclear weapons and have a big
war that destroys their civilization and weakens their species so
that they no longer dominate their planet and other (not so intelligent)
species take over their planet.  We may now be less than a decade
away from that fatal disaster.  Maybe less than a year.  Maybe 20 minutes.

The other theory is based on selected (biased) data.  Why does the
planet we happen to be on have the nicest atmosphere in the whole
solar system?  Why does the Universe seem to be just about the right
size where it stays expanding for 18 billion years instead of being
so massive it collapses in a half a million years?  Why does the Universe
have about the right amount of matter and energy, a surplus of
matter over antimatter, nice stable atoms, etc.?  Why do we seem to
be the first civilization in our galaxy?  BECAUSE we're
alive here on this planet in this universe observing things!  If
the Universe didn't survive long enough to support life, we wouldn't
be here asking these questions.  So the fact we're here implies
the universe is nice and there's nobody else out there in our own
galaxy to conquer us.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 1981 0927-PDT
From: Bob Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: Reasons advanced civilizations haven't contacted us
To: space at MIT-MC

To be ultimately pessimistic, how do we know that advanced civilizations
are MORE stable than our own. Perhaps the mean life-time of a civilization
is only a few thousand years and that they almost inevitably reach a
crisis point and blow themselves up in a war of some type. 
 
That might drastically reduce the number of advanced civilizations with
interstellar transport capability, and render the ones who have it and
have managed to become stable VERY SHY of contacting intermediate
civilizations that in all likelihood will disintergrate in a few hundred
years in a radioactive cloud of dust.

So... the vast majority of interstellar civilizations might only have
achieved such status by avoiding contact with immediate civilizations
who would prove a source of conflict.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 1981 1233-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Where is everybody?
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Back during the post war period at Los Alamos Enrico Fermi asked, quite out of
the blue, so out of the blue in fact that it was immediately obvious what he
meant, "Where is everybody?"

This is the right question.  If you consider the time frames and the distances
it should be immediately obvious that the galaxy should already be overrun by
some earlier space going civilization.  The alternatives are rather fundamental.

One alternative that I have heard meantioned is that human, biological life is
but the starting point for advanced civilized life.  In a few years, we will
develop Artificial Intelligence or some kind of human / computer symbiosis 
which is really where evolution is leading us.  We, in or current form, are just
a stepping stone, and probably the last or next to last of the biological kind.

Thus the answer to the question is that they are out there watching, waiting
for us to advance to the next stage.
	-Ted Anderson

PS: It should be noted that the development of world (or at least
civilization) destroying weapons occurs in tandem with the development of
computers.  This is not an accident.  The universe is inherently stable as
REM pointed out.  It is not all that easy to build something as unstable
as a hydrogen bomb.  In fact, it takes some of the most sophisticated
computers we can muster.  This gives me hope that if both occur
simultaneously (evolutionarily speaking) there is hope that it is common
for a race to move on to the non-biological phase before losing the whole
ball game on their planet of birth.
------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 1981 1709-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Shuttle damage updates  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a247  1508  25 Sep 81
AM-Space Shuttle,480
Launch to Take Place October or November
By IKE FLORES
Associated Press Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - The space shuttle Columbia won't need to
be removed from its launch pad so that damage from a fueling accident
can be repaired, and its second mission will take place in late
October or early November, space agency officials said Friday.
    A new launch date is to be announced in two weeks, following a
detailed assessment of repairs to the reusable spacecraft's
heat-protection tiles and to a steering system in its nose.
    Officials had worried that a mechanical breakdown which caused a
corrosive propellant to spill down Columbia's forward section last
Tuesday would require extensive repair work away from the launch site.
That would have meant a delay of months.
    But they were relieved to discover only minor damage from leakage
into the Reaction Control System, a series of thrusters used to help
maneuver the space craft during orbit and atmospheric re-entry.
    However, officials said Friday it was possible that delays in the
second mission could cause postponement of future flights.
    ''The whole thing probably will have an impact on the next (third)
launch,'' said Hugh Harris, information officer at Kennedy Space
Center. ''But there is a good possibility that the (repair) time can
be made up later.''
    Fifteen thermal blankets inside the Reaction Control System pod were
soaked by the propellant, nitrogen tetroxide, and had to be removed.
Some wiring and other items turned brownish from corrosive fluid, but
were not seriously damaged.
    Damage to the orbiter's thermal-protection system was another story.
At least 338 tiles either came unglued or had to be removed because
the fluid corroded the adhesive that binds them to Columbia's aluminum
skin.
    The tiles are being ''decontaminated'' by being washed and baked,
officials say. They will then be water-proofed and glued back onto the
orbiter.
    Bob Gordon of Rockwell International, which built Columbia and
developed its heat-protection system, said rebonding of the tiles
would begin early next week.
    ''We will have tile-repair crews working on three levels, with six
to eight men working on each level,'' Gordon said. ''We will work
three shifts, 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week.''
    There was no estimate on how long the tile work would take.
    Rockwell technicians also were trying to determine whether it would
be necessary to replace any of the small thrusters in the steering
system.
    Meanwhile, engineers discovered the reason for the failure of a
''quick disconnect'' shut-off valve which caused the 2-3 gallon spill
down down the right side of the nose area.
    Concentrations of iron nitrate had built up around the metal head of
the section which connects to the servicing panel of the orbiter.
Engineers theorized that the iron nitrate had been somehow formed in
the fuel lines once the propellant had left its storage tank and had
then concentrated at the valve connected to the servicing panel.
    They weren't sure what caused the iron nitrate to form within the
fuel. Filters will be installed at the point where the fuel lines
leave the storage tank and all shut-off valves will be cleaned before
they are used again, Harris said.
    
ap-ny-09-25 1804EDT
***************



------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #202    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 202

Today's Topics:
			Intelligence in the Galaxy
			     Intelligent life
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 1981 1058-PDT
From: DIETZ at USC-ECL
Subject: Intelligence in the Galaxy
To: space at MIT-MC


The real point is NOT to claim that there are very few inhabited planets
in the galaxy but rather to point out that the standard program of searching
for extraterrestrial intelligence (build Cyclops) is unnecessary, because
its usefulness is predicated on a very unlikely scenario.

If the zoo hypothesis is true we should be able to detect activity in 
nearby stars (within 100 ly?) which shouldn't be too hard with current
radio telescopes.

-------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 1981 1605-CDT
From: CMP.MKSMITH at UTEXAS-20
Subject: Intelligent life
To: space at MIT-MC


I was watching a nice series on PBS, "The Voyages of Charles
Darwin". One of the recurring notions was that man is the
pinnacle of evolution. We all assume this to be a strictly local
phenomenon. But we do seem to share the idea that intelligence
is the natural outcome of evolution in other environments on
other planets. Right there, of course, is a gross assumption,
that natural selection Darwinian style is going to be the
mainspring driving the development of life on other planets.
Perhaps Lamarck was right, only not here. (Though there is of
course a footnote here, since Lamarckian ideas refuse to die.
Edward Steele has proposed a mechanism by which the
characteristics of successful mutant cells within an organism
would be encoded in germ line cells by viruses. The data seem
dubious, however. See Science, 17-July-81.) Of course natural
selection or Lamarck produce similar results. The more basic
question is whether intelligence is going to always be the winner
in the fitness derby. Phillip K. Dick has touched on this one in
a short story, I forget the title.  "The Golden ... "
something-or-other. The new man could perceive the developing set of
futures and had great sex appeal, but was otherwise a moron.  The
mutation was a bit fancy because Dick was introducing it into a
highly technological culture. But back when we were figuring out
how to use tools perhaps there were other possible competing
forms that by the luck of the draw did not show up. Perhaps in
most other places they do. The argument against this is that
eventually the environment will shift and intelligence is going
to again get a shot, ultimately triumphing. We don't have nearly
enough data to decide whether intelligence is necessarily an
ultimate winner.

Bill W covered the following nicely, but just to reiterate: All
of these ideas that intelligence implies high technology implies
bombs implies the inevitable destruction of a civilization are
pretty hackneyed, another instance of our anthropomorphising the
alien. You have to assume a diverse set of intelligences if you
believe there to be very many of them.  We have no evidence at
all as to where we sit on the various bell curves of species
tendencies. Perhaps this is further support for the notion of
there being few.

One last comment. Let's assume that the natural path for an
intelligent species leads to a technologically augmented group
intelligence. How would such a society spend its time? And assume
they are out there. What makes us think they have "chosen" not to
communicate with us because we are too immature or something? (I
hate this "in loco parentis" premise, didn't like it the first
time I read it 20 years ago.) When was the last time you "decided"
not to talk to a rock? Ok, a cockroach.

- Mike Smith
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Sep-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #203    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 203

Today's Topics:
			 Expanding civilizations 
			    Proxmire's Revenge
			   Anybody out there??
			     Intelligent life
		      Intelligent life in the galaxy
			     Intelligent life
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 1981 1016-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Expanding civilizations 
To:   space at MIT-MC  


Perhaps the reason we have not yet encountered a space-faring civilization
is that the civilizations that are interested in expansion and colonization
are also likely to be the ones that are prone to fighting amongst themselves.

Thus, the number of intelligent civilizations in the galaxy might be quite
large, but encountering one (by means of our current plan for contact with
extra-terrestrial culture: Stay at home and let them come to us) may be
fairly improbable.  Most of the civilizations we might meet easily 
have self-destructive tendencies.  This is *not* to say that they (and
we) are necessarily doomed by these tendencies.  Just that it makes things
a bit tougher.

Incidentally, with regards to Project Cyclops: I came across a set of
posters in Berkeley the other day by Don Dixon.  One was a spectacular
painting of Cyclops (with Earth eclipsing the Sun in the background).
Another was a painting of what may have been the most significant event
in human history:  The asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs (we think)
and permitted mammal evolution to proceed in such a way as to produce
the readers, writer, subject, and medium of this message.

					-- Tom

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 1981 1141-PDT
From: DIETZ at USC-ECL
Subject: Proxmire's Revenge
To: space at MIT-MC


I just heard something on the radio about a SETI project being
mothballed (at Stanford, I think) due to budget cuts.  Does anyone
have details?

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 1981 1050-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Anybody out there??
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Earth to Mars, Wednesday's the Deadline
By HOWARD BENEDICT
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - If there are any outer space civilizations trying
to contact Earthlings, they have until midnight Wednesday to get
their message through.
    That's when the government disconnects the switchboard that has been
listening for cosmic radio signals in an ambitious attempt to
determine if intelligent beings exist out there.
    It is just one of scores of federal programs getting the ax under
President Reagan's fiscal 1982 budget.
    Like many government projects, it has an acronym - SETI, for Search
for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence. It is a 6-year-old effort to
develop antennae and computer programs that could distinquish
meaningful signals from the flood of microwaves that constantly flow
toward Earth from stars, galaxies, quasars, pulsars and other
deep-space sources.
    Under the plan, laid out by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, giant dish receivers have been scanning the universe
for radio transmissions. The soon-to-be completed computer would
separate routine background noise from signals which might possibly
come from an intelligent source.
    ''The project officials are greatly disappointed because they have
nearly completed the computer programs and were within six months of
giving them a major test,'' said Charles Redmond, a spokesman for
NASA's Office of Space Science.
    He said the machine being developed for the project will be wrapped
in plastic and put on a shelf at Stanford University, where it is
being built, and a SETI committee will write a report on what has been
done to date.
    ''It means we will have to stop looking at our space shore for a
message-in-a-bottle cast out by another civilization,'' Redmond said.
''Sadly, if you don't look for anything, you never find anything.''
    Actually, SETI has been living on borrowed time for three years,
ever since it won one of the government's least favorite distinctions,
the ''Golden Fleece'' award made periodically by Sen. William
Proxmire, D-Wis.
    Proxmire argued that the project was a waste of money because
intelligent life might be extinct by the time Earth received and
replied to a message, a roundtrip that could take millions of years.
    ''It's hard enough to find intelligent life in Washington, let alone
outer space,'' he contended. Congress went along and cut SETI's
budget in 1978.
    But NASA, displaying some budget wizardry of its own, quietly
transferred SETI to its exobiology program and continued to fund the
search. So far, $3.6 million has been spent on the project.
    Proxmire struck again last summer and won congressional approval of
an amendment stopping the use of exobiology funds for SETI. A
budget-conscious administration went along.
    Said Proxmire: ''There is not a scintilla of evidence that
intelligent life exists beyond our solar system.''
    To which Redmond replies: ''As late as 1491, there was not a
scintilla of evidence that America existed.''
    
ap-ny-09-28 0235EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 29 September 1981 03:58-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Intelligent life
To: CMP.MKSMITH at UTEXAS-20
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	The argument that perhaps intelligence is
counter-productive for long term survival goes this way:
		Mathematically it looks as if there ought to be
a LOT of inhabited planets, and thus quite a few (hundreds,
anyway) on which intelligence developed; and a reasonable number
of those (tens anyway) are probably a LOT older than we.
	Given that interstellar travel is at all possible, then
Fermi's question: where are they?
	Given that it is not (and we after all see ways that we
could do it with sufficient motive), it is till the case that in
a few years we are going to make it unambiguously clear that we
are here, and do that over a fairly wide area (taking time for
our Howdy Doody and Uncle Miltie shows to travel along at speed
of light, but what the hell).
	But if we are making it unambiguously clear that we are
here, and we assume any kind of technology by "them" then why
haven't they made it clear they exist? (How could they avoid it?
We didn't.)
	Thus, once again, where are they?

	Hypotheses fall into a number of categories including
the
	EMPTY UNIVERSE
	ZOO
	Nursury
	We're property
	We're being exploited (see my JANISSARIES)
	etc.

	But one of them is that when you get to about where we
are, you do yourself in, one way or another (not all involve h
bombs; mass suicide from disilusionment because we see no
purpose to it all and old man entropy just keeps rollin' so why
bother is another).
	It isn't the only hypothesis. But it is a bit curious.

	WHERE **ARE** they?

------------------------------

Date: 29 September 1981 04:02-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Intelligent life in the galaxy
To: BILLW at SRI-KL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	Wouldn't you think that a few of "them" would be
interested in species lifetimes measured in billions of years?
	Because if so, they have no choice but to be interested
in technology, and space technology at that.
	Perhaps most won't be, and some may simply want to sit
under their fig tree enjoying their vine, but is it reasonable
that no species other than ours wants to live 50 billion years?

------------------------------

Date: 29 September 1981 06:31-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Intelligent life
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

I personally like the Darwinian theory and believe it to be universally
true among reproducing competing lifeforms. It seems to obvious.
It's really a non-theory. It simply says that there is no divine
guidance, it's just that what survives to breed will breed and what
doesn't survive to breed won't breed, so in the future only those
lifeforms that are best at surviving will be around, then among those
lifeforms if conditions get worse so some of them don't survive (or
if recessive genes crop up), the crop will be further pruned so only
the best of the best will remain.

I see two main questions.  First, is it possible for a mutation to
create lifeforms better at surviving than their parents.  If so, then
Darwinian selection will eventually cause these new lifeforms to replace
their parents, thus evolving new better lifeforms. I think we already
have evidence that this happens in disease organisms and insects
(evolving immunity to our medicines and insecticides that didn't
exist before), and it's reasonable to assume it's universal.

Second, is human-style intelligence better at surviving than other
types of thinking or non-thinking? (We humans are very curious,
even to the point of endangering ourselves to find out something
"interesting", witness children playing with matches and drugs.
We humans like to enhance our family at the expense of other people
we don't know, both by over-breeding and by fighting racist wars.)
I doubt very much if 100% of habitats are such that human-style
intelligence survives better than other kinds. In fact it looks
sort of like human-style intelligence is similar to dinosaur power
in that it dominates the Earth for a while but dies out to be replaced
by something "better", thus in the cosmic picture both humans and
dinosaurs are temporary phenomena.  Perhaps lifeforms like dinosaurs
(big and powerful) and humans (curious and aggressively technological)
come and go but some other lifeform always wins in the end, and the
advanced parts of the Cosmos are populated mostly with these other
more-permanent lifeforms that haven't yet evolved on Terra.
Maybe our chance of getting out into space (really, not just short
trips to the moon and Earth-orbiting space stations) is virtually zero,
but if we beat the odds and make it out there we'll be a real surprise
to those other more likely lifeforms.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Sep-81  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V1 #204    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 1 : Issue 204

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Intelligent life
			Wiping Out the Human Race
			   As far as I can tell
		 Intelligent life in D.C. and elsewhere.
			     Intelligent Life
			  The indifferent stars
		     Elucidation of previous message.
			    where are they all
		      [Re: SPACE Digest V1 #203    ]
				Astrometry
       Research on life-support systems for futures space colonies
			   Re: Intelligent life
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1981 0746-CDT
From: CMP.MKSMITH at UTEXAS-20
Subject: Re: Intelligent life
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 29-Sep-81 0258-CDT

The argument that there must be lots of loose information pinging around
the galaxy if there are 1E6 civilizations isn't obvious. In an information
rich society, like ours is becoming, the airwaves wil be superceded by
cables and optics. I have read estimates of how long a civilization will
use broadcast to communicate but I don't remember them. 100 yrs? 1000? This
clamps the probability of lots of easily accesible galactic eavesdroping
way down.  10 billion (~age of galaxy) / (1E6 X 100) = .1 . Not great odds
since we are not going to be capable of picking up information from
everywhere with equal facility. Of course the idea that we should be
swamped by broadcasts assumes that "they" share our love of random
information as epitomized by the tube. Maybe they entertain themselves
in other ways, impossible as that is to conceive. 

Admittedly we have been making our presence known for a while, but we
have no reason the think they would want to talk to us. They will be 
truly alien, not just physically. I can't help being leery of arguments
that seem to presuppose that our motives will be theirs.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1981 0831-PDT
From: DIETZ at USC-ECL
Subject: Wiping Out the Human Race
To: space at MIT-MC


With all this talk of races wiping themselves out, what evidence do
we have that it is even possible?  A full scale nuclear war doesn't
even come close to wiping out humanity.  I find it hard to conceive
of a disaster that could destroy humanity without also nearly 
sterilizing the globe.  Intelligence implies incredible adaptibility -
so we are in much better shape than the dinosaurs.

Also, evolution is NOT driven by mutation.  In higher organisms, it is
driven by the diversity created during the recombination of genes in
sexual reproduction.  In bacteria, resistance to drugs is not caused by
random mutation but rather by picking up a drug resistance gene from
another bacterium or a plasmid (conjugation) or from a bacteriophage.
Granted, the gene originally was produced by random mutations, but this
doesn't have to happen more than once.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1981 (Tuesday) 1134-EDT
From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus)
Subject: As far as I can tell
To:   space at MIT-MC

I would guess another intelligent race would want to have NO BUSINESS
with our race.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1981 1045-CDT
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Intelligent life in D.C. and elsewhere.
To: space at MIT-MC

	Proxmire is quite right about there being questions of whether
intelligent life exists in Washington D.C.  Proxmire himself raises the
biggest doubts because he is so obviously lacking in any intelligence.

        Short-sightedness on the part of our politicians is what has put the
human species on the road to probable suicide, and Sen. Proxmire is
a prime example of this malaise ("The planets will be there for billions
of years, so let's not bother with exploring them any time soon").

	It strikes me that the true test of the survivablitiy of  a
species is if it can move beyond its' home world and overcome the
ignorant idiots among them.

        Did anyone think that maybe THEY are waiting for US to visit?
Consider a semi-non-anthromorphic scale of maturity -- would an interstellar 
community WANT to make its existance known to a world where the
inhabitants spend much of their energies devising better ways to
kill each other? (Out of self-protection as much as galactic Darwinism).

        If mankind ever amounts to much, it will be in spite of
our pea-brained, short-sighted politicians like Proxmire. Where
**ARE** they? Probably waiting at Proxmia Centauri to see whether to
throw a coming-out party or send in the Vogon Constructor Fleet.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1981 1054-CDT
From: Jon Webb <CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Intelligent Life
To: Space at MIT-MC
cc: cs.webb at UTEXAS-20

I don't think we know enough to say much about the number of intelligent
civilizations in the universe.  The problem is that we have only one
example of such a civilization, indeed only one example of a solar
system capable of supporting any kind of life, so that all our reasoning
has to be done in a vacuum.

There may be 1, 10, 100, 1000, ... intelligent civilizations in this
galaxy or this universe; we simply don't have enough data to say.  If we
found evidence of any of these numbers we'd simply fiddle around with
our models to make them fit the data.

Jon

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1981 0946-PDT
From: Bob Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: The indifferent stars
To: space at MIT-MC

One hypothesis I haven't seen mentioned as to why we haven't been visited
is that we may simply be so common a phenomena that it isn't worthwhile
even cataloguing such life developments. Suppose life isn't just possible,
or even just probably, but SUPERABUNDANT. Suppose advanced civilizations
visit their nearby 100 solar systems and discover life forms in some
stage of evolution in virtually every one. Suppose even interbreeding is
possible, plus inter-infectivity from viruses, etc. ("What, another flu
brought home from those interstellar probes!").
  The thought is that after a certain amount of this an advanced civilization
might not continue indefinitely exploring the whole universe, but settle
down to do some serious bio-engineering of its own.
 It is always very tempting for us to regard ourselves as extra-special in
the scheme of things. Earthnocentrism may be the rule among embryonic
civilizations.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1981 1244-CDT
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Elucidation of previous message.
To: space at MIT-MC

	Hmm... apparantly some folks missed the reference to the
planet-demolishing race introduced in "The Hitch-Hikers Guide to
the Galaxy". The point is that either man will be welcomed or
destroyed, depending on behavior.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1981 1403-CDT
From: Kim Korner <CC.KORNER at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: where are they all
To: space at MIT-MC

	Imagine homing in on reruns of "The Beverly Hillbillies" and other
such drivel. Earth is probably infamous throughout the galaxy for the death of
numerous exploratory crews (all suicided). Deathrays of dreck...
		-KMK

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1981 1410-EDT
From: PDL at MIT-DMS (P. David Lebling)
To: OTA at SU-AI
In-reply-to: Message of 29 Sep 81 at 0402 PDT by OTA@SU-AI
Subject: [Re: SPACE Digest V1 #203    ]
Message-id: <[MIT-DMS].211471>

Another explanation for why "they" aren't out there is that they are,
but they aren't broadcasting.  More and more broadcasting on this
planet is becoming "narrowcasting" via cables, optical fibers, and so
on.  As the argument goes, there is really only a narrow time window
within which the Uncle Milties and Lucille Balls are broadcast to the
universe.  In our case it is likely to be considerably less than 100
years.  Past that window, there would have to be a conscious decision
to broadcast for the edification of lesser civilizations, because
all internal traffic would be narrowcast.

	Dave

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1981 1332-PDT
From: DIETZ at USC-ECL
Subject: Astrometry
To: space at MIT-MC

Some years ago some astronomers claimed that they had detected a
large planet around Barnard's star by astrometric techniques (that
is, by measuring the position of the star accurately to detect the
motion caused by the planet).  Their results are now generally
attributed to errors in measurement.  However, there have been some
technological advances in astrometry that will make the detection
of planets around nearby stars feasible.

Viewed from 10 parsecs, the angular motion of the sun caused by the
earth's motion is about 1 micro arc-second (1 uas).  At the same
distance jupiter causes a motion of about 500 uas.  To get some idea
how small these angles are, 1 uas is about the angle subtended by an
atom held at arm's length.

On the drawing boards right now are ground based astrometric telescopes
that can achieve an accuracy of 1000 uas per night, or 100 uas per yearly
normal point (average of one years observations).  This would easily allow
the detection of jupiter like planets within 30 ly.

The space telescope was not designed for astrometry, but should be able
to achieve 1000 uas.  A space based astrometric telescope would be about
40m long (it would be telescoped to fit in the shuttle cargo bay).  It
would have an ultimate accuracy of about 1 uas.  This would allow the
detection of earth-like planets around nearby stars, and the detection
of jupiter-like planets out to large distances (100's of lys).

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1981 1914-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Research on life-support systems for futures space colonies
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n018  0821  29 Sep 81
BC-SCIENCE-WATCH (UNDATED)
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    In an experiment on possible life-support systems for future space
colonies, a space agency scientist has established what appear to be
totally self-sufficient communities of shrimp, algae and microbes
capable of generating their own food, oxygen and water within the
confines of sealed glass flasks. These laboratory communities have
thrived now for more than 15 months.
    The animals and plants in these small ecosystems are the largest
ever to have lived as much as a year in a closed environment,
according to Joe Hanson, an ecologist at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.
    The world for each of these communities is a one-liter glass flask
that was hermetically sealed (by melting the neck of the flask
closed) when the experiment began last year. Only light, from
fluorescent lamps, and heat may enter or leave through the glass
walls.
    Living in three cups of synthetic sea water inside each flask are as
many as 16 small red tropical shrimp less than one inch long,
assorted algae and many varieties of bacteria, viruses and
microscopic animals. In these ecosystems, plants (algae) produce the
oxygen and foods that feed the shrimp and other animal life, and the
animals' wastes provide carbon dioxide and fertilizer consumed by the
algae. Only energy, in the form of light, comes from outside the
system.
    How these closed microecosystems, as they are called, could perhaps
be applied to developing larger and more complex ecosystems to
support human colonies in space will be explored at a National
Aeronautics and Space Administration workshop to be held at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory next January.



------------------------------

Date: 30 September 1981 01:29-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Intelligent life
To: CMP.MKSMITH at UTEXAS-20
cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

You are undoubtedly correct, of course.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

