Aucbvax.4201 fa.space utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space Sat Oct 3 19:29:33 1981 SPACE Digest V2 #3 >From OTA@SU-AI Sat Oct 3 02:22:19 1981 SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Total Nuclear War => Global Extinction? Against the Halley Probe New Shuttle director named ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Oct 1981 17:59:27-PDT From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg]) To: SPACE at MC Subject: Total Nuclear War => Global Extinction? This is getting a little off the subject of this list, but that is nothing new... A one megaton nuclear blast releases 4.2E22 ergs. The asteroid impact that formed the Manicouagan Astrobleme released approximately 7E29 ergs, or about 10 million megatons, which is far more than a total nuclear war would release. Manicouagan happened on the order of 100 million years ago, so it obviously didn't cause global extinction. Therefore, to a first approximation, total nuclear war will not cause global extinction, on this planet or any other. Now, whether it would cause the permanent end of human or alien civilization is another question. There is no known data on this subject, so I think we will have to do an experiment... --- Jef [For those of you who don't keep close track of these things, and were wondering, Manicouagan appears to be in Quebec about 150 miles north of the St. Lawrence. -ota] [I would like to urge people not to start discussing total nuclear war on this mailing list. ARMS-D at MIT-MC is a mailing list devoted to discussing, among other things, nuclear weapons and their effects and is probably a more appropriate forum. Send mail to ARMS-D-REQUEST@MC for inquiries about this list. Ted Anderson] ------------------------------ Date: 2 October 1981 23:08 edt From: Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Against the Halley Probe To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 2 October 1981 07:01 edt from Ted Anderson Pardon my ignorance. What is so important about whether or not there is ice at the Moon's poles? All you basic-science folks, don't get on me. I mean, given a choice between the ice in Halley's comet and the ice on the Moon, why is the latter so much more important? ------------------------------ Date: 03 Oct 1981 0154-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: New Shuttle director named To: space at MIT-MC n084 1850 02 Oct 81 AM-SHUTTLE By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - An Air Force general was named Friday to head the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's shuttle project. He is Maj. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, a former test pilot and manager of the F-16 fighter development program. . . . . Abrahamson, a deputy chief of staff at the Air Force Systems Command, at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, is to become associate administrator in charge of the Office of Space Transportation Systems in November. He succeeds John F. Yardley, who resigned the post in May to become president of McDonnell Astronautics Co. in St. Louis. Abrahamson's primary responsibility will be the completion of the troubled space shuttle's tests and its transition to full operations. In announcing the appointment, James M. Beggs, the space agency administrator, said, ''General Abrahamson's close acquaintance with the shuttle and his excellent program management record make him uniquely qualified to head shuttle development.'' In 1979, when technical and cost problems were besetting the shuttle development, Abrahamson was brought in by the space agency as a member of a five-person board to assess the program's management and recommend changes. Before that the 48-year-old general was a test pilot and an astronaut with the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory program in the 1960s. The appointment of an Air Force general to the post, however, is expected to raise questions about the possibly growing military influence over the shuttle program. At least one-third of the shuttle's flights are expected to have military missions. Pentagon support of the program is generally credited with having saved it from cancellation in the 1970s. nyt-10-02-81 2151edt *************** . . . . . Abrahamson, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a combat pilot in Vietnam, was the spacecraft project officer for the Vela nuclear detection satellite program in the early 1960s. The instrumented satellites were designed as orbiting watchdogs to police adherence to the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty, which forbids nuclear testing in the atmosphere or outer space. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 1981 0300-PDT From: Stuart McLure Cracraft To: space at MIT-MC !n534 0206 03 Oct 81 BC-SPACE-3takes-10-03 By Albert Sehlstedt Jr. (c) 1981 The Baltimore Sun (Field News Service) WASHINGTON - Let's not repeat the Ming Dynasty's mistake, Congress was advised during a recent hearing on the future of the space program. The Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) may seem far removed from space shuttles, Saturn's rings, balanced budgets or Social Security payments, but testimony at a congressional hearing touched upon a potential parallel between the American present and the Chinese past. Some 500 years ago, the House subcommittee on space sciences and applications was told, China's Ming Dynasty abruptly restricted the operations of its superb maritime fleet that had tapped the wealth of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. ''Within a century, China was being picked apart by Europeans, who found a backward, ignorant nation that was already fragmenting into petty principalities,'' a witness testified. So much for history. Is the United States, beset by a host of domestic and foreign problems, ready to eliminate the space program, which has shrunk to less than 1 percent of the total national budget? ''I don't want this history to repeat itself, and the hearings are one effort toward rejuvenating our nation's space effort,'' said Rep. Ronnie G. Flippo (D-Ala.), citing China's mistake in a statement that set the tone for the three days of testimony on America's future in space. Flippo, who was chairman of the sessions, may have diminished his position as an unbiased observer with that partisan view, but his panel's hearings did provide Congress with a reasoned commentary on the virtues of the space program which, as a consequence of equally reasoned decisions in the future, may shrink even further in the 1980s. Missing from the witness list was a well-known critic of the space program, Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.), who has cut from the national budget a program to search for radio signals from space that would be indicative of intelligent life beyond this solar system. Also missing was George A. Keyworth II, who is on the record as saying that future space policy will demand ''perceptive judgments.'' Dr. Keyworth's views are pertinent because he is the president's science adviser. The adviser, expressing his views in a prepared speech in June, was not denigrating the space program and, indeed, commented that the initial success of the space shuttle in its April flight had ''stimulated the administration to embark on an interagency review of questions involving its operational future, plus a number of other vital matters concerning the direction of our space program.'' However, Dr. Keyworth's comments hardly conveyed the enthusiasm expressed by many of the witnesses who testified before the House panel and who spoke of such things as ''virtually unlimited future possibilities in space.'' Much of the congressional testimony, from an historian, a futurist, a banker, businessmen and scientists, followed the line that the space program not only would pay for itself in benefits to mankind, but would excite the minds of today's youth - the engineers and scientists of the 21st century - and bring that generation the lasting gratitude of history. ''Although we might quarrel with one another about the program's benefits, our descendants will look back upon our times and our generation with respect and awe,'' said Melvin Kranzberg, professor of history at the Georgia Institute of Technology. ''For future generations men will recall with fascination and admiration their 20th century ancestors who possessed the will, the courage and the means to make the giant leap into extraterrestrial adventures,'' Dr. Kranzberg said. While good reviews in history books may not enthrall citizens who need food stamps and day-care centers, the immediate benefits of the space program were cited as a persuasive argument by other witnesses. Not the least of those benefits are food, water and minerals to support an expanding world population that is expected to double by 2015. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has been developing for years spacecraft instruments designed to detect such resources as mineral deposits, large schools of fish at sea, and fresh water that could help people of the poorer nations. In the field of medicine, Dr. Donlin M. Long, chairman of the department of neurological surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, said his work has benefited from advances in the space program. As an example, Dr. Long mentioned an intercranial pressure monitor that can be implanted in the human skull through a minor operation to record the critical changes in pressure that follow serious head injuries. Another witness, Marvin J. Cetron, conceded that the space program will not pay for itself in the short run, but he was more optimistic about the future, meaning the next century. ''It will not pay for itself, let alone yield a profit,'' said Cetron, who is president of Forecasting International, Ltd., of Arlington, Va. ''Therefore,'' he continued, ''the principal reasons for continuing the space program in the short run will be defense, prestige and knowledge, with emphasis on the first. (MORE) nyt-10-03-81 0507edt ********** !n535 0217 03 Oct 81 BC-SPACE-1stadd-10-03 X X X ON THE FIRST. ''Military uses will continue to predominate, although in certain instances prestige may become very important, such as a possible visit by Halley's Comet when it reappears in 1986.'' (Many space enthusiasts have decried the United States' failure to launch a spacecraft for a close look at the comet, particularly in light of the fact that other nations, including the Soviet Union, are thinking in those terms.) Cetron's reference to prestige is no small matter in space exploration, just as a fleet of jet airliners is a cherished asset of some small nations who, it has been argued, could spend their money more humanely on agriculture or water purification. As another witness pointed out, this nation's decision to land men on the moon was based, to a large extent, on the fact that the Soviet Union had reaped unimagined propaganda value from its ''firsts'' in space, such as orbiting the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, and putting the first man in space. Looking 20 years ahead, Cetron saw the space program becoming self-supporting and bringing ''significant benefits to the civilian economy.'' Even more optimistic was David Hannah, Jr., leader of a Houston company, Space Services, Inc., that hopes to launch its own rocket next year, despite the initial failure of an engine in a ground test last month. ''In my opinion,'' Hannah told the House committee, ''now is the time for the private sector to take advantage of the tremendous accomplishment of NASA by efficiently and responsibly developing the resources of space for the benefit of society. ''Government has fulfilled its responsibility to open the new frontier, and it is now incumbent upon Space Services and all the companies which will follow to make the frontier accessible for industrialization and commercialization,'' he said. A step in this direction has been taken by one of the giants of the industry, Boeing Aerospace Company, which has signed an agreement with a European corporation to market and launch low-cost satellites. The satellites can be used for scientific experiments, and for communications and agricultural surveys of the Earth, Boeing has said. Japan, an acknowledged whiz at building automobiles and TV sets, also is looking for ''space bucks,'' Hannah said. He quoted an article from Japan Times which stated that Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry ''has begun taking steps to transform Japan's space program from a loosely organized network of research projects into an industry. ''Space,'' the article continued, ''will be a $4.5 billion industry for Japanese manufacturers by the mid-1990s, comparable in size to today's radio and television manufacturing industry.'' An American banker was of similar mind. ''The movement to space will require great investment, but the payoffs will return many times the outlay in ways both numerous and unforeseen,'' said Hank E. Koehn, a vice president of Security Pacific National Bank of Los Angeles. In this connection, Koehn reminded the House panel that the study of chlorine reactions in the atmosphere of Venus led to the discovery that fluorocarbons were capable of deteriorating the protective ozone layer in Earth's upper atmosphere. ''Space does not represent an area of endeavor that should be undertaken only after the problems here on Earth are solved - it may well be the solution to those problems,'' Koehn testified. He told the Flippo committee that ''a new alliance of government and business is now required for the new world of space, one that is more commercially oriented in the granting of proprietary rights, for example, or clearly the Soviets, Japanese and Europeans will leave us behind.'' It was Koehn who made the historical reference to the Chinese navy in the Ming dynasty, then added: ''This is clearly one past we must not allow to become prologue to our own future.'' John D. Young, professor of public management at American University here, spoke about the future of the space program in a political context. ''Very few political leaders, regardless of party or other convictions, will want to clearly stake themselves out for a specific future space program that costs much more than the current one, if that much,'' he said. (NASA's budget for the current fiscal year is $5.5 billion.) ''There is no effective constituency for such a future program when you come face-to-face with such trade-offs as changes in Social Security, further reductions in student assistance for middle-class families and similar federal programs,'' Dr. Young said. ''The general tendency of the American electorate is to support many things, such as the space program, until it comes to trade-offs where the individual sees his or her self-interest at risk.'' Banking and politics aside, another committee witness spoke of bringing the space program to Main Street by establishing ''neighborhood space centers'' in cities and towns. These retail establishments would be financed with the sales of pictures, books, slides and other space paraphernalia to acquaint the public with some of the things beyond the atmosphere they breathe. (MORE) nyt-10-03-81 0518edt ********** !n536 0220 03 Oct 81 BC-SPACE-2ndadd-10-03 X X X ATMOSPHERE THEY BREATHE. ''These space centers would be similar to ... 7-Eleven stores where, readily available on the street corners and in the shopping centers, are all the glories of the space program,'' said Stan Kent, president of a group of space buffs called Delta Vee, Inc. Kent, an aeronautical engineer and graduate of Stanford University, said one such neighborhood store already has opened in Los Gatos, Calif., and plans are under way for similar centers - ''a sort of McDonald's in space'' - in other communities. ''Plain and simply,'' he said of his organization, ''we want to increase the speed with which we explore space.'' He explained to the congressmen that the name of his corporation, Delta Vee, is taken from the technical shorthand of space scientists and engineers. The Greek letter delta, and the Roman letter ''v,'' when written together, denote a change in velocity. Kent said his nonprofit company represents 15,000 people who make small contributions to support space projects. He brought to the hearing 2,000 letters ''representing a sample of our constituency.'' He spread the letters out on the witness table in front of him, commenting that the mail convinced him that ''the public desperately wants to be a part of the space program.'' It was apparent that Kent's group was, indeed, ready for a change in velocity of the space program. END nyt-10-03-81 0521edt ********** ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* ----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/ This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided: 1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles. 2. The following notice remains appended to each copy: The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.