Conference 7.286::space

    	Considering that over $100 billion were invested in the space
    program between 1978 and 1986 (the period of time covered by this
    study), $23 billion in sales and savings with the resulting $356
    million in corporate income taxes does not sound so great a return on
    investment (then again I doubt any other Federal agency program did
    this well). If personal income taxes were included, the return to the
    Federal government might be closer to a couple of billion dollars
    (still not terrific).
    	I think that this study has GROSSLY underestimated the impact of
    space. If one were to fairly judge the impact of the space program, one
    would have to include ALL innovations of the space program since 1958.
    The sales resulting from the microelectronics industry would amount to
    TRILLIONS of dollars over the past 30 years and hundreds of BILLIONS of
    dollars to an industry like the aerospace industry, not to mention
    telecommunications, medicine, computers and so on. In addition we would
    have all the advances made possible from these spin offs which could
    very well be incalculable (not to mention what it has done for other
    countries like Japan which has benefited greatly). I am sure that
    using this sort of accounting would show that every single cent spent
    on the space program was turned into several cents worth of tax revenue
    (from both personal and corporate income taxes) for the Federal
    government. I remember a commonly quoted figure from the mid-1970's
    that every dollar invested in the space program ultimately generates
    seven dollars in tax revenue. Now that is a damn good return on
    investment! Imagine what would happen if, by some act of God, the
    President's proposed Mars mission is ultimately funded at the required
    level of $30 billion dollars per year!
    
    				Drew
    

    here's one obvious advantage we have taken for granted!
    the amount of human suffering we no long have because of weather
    sat. warning of impending hurricanes.
    you really can't put a price on that!
    pete

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Work at KSC generates $1.24 billion boost to Florida's economy.
Date: 11 Dec 89 23:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
    [You wondered where your tax dollars are going? - PEY]
 
  Bruce Buckingham
  Kennedy Space Center, Florida                Dec. 11, 1989
 
  KSC RELEASE NO. 131-89
  
   WORK AT KSC GENERATES $1.24 BILLION BOOST TO FLORIDA'S ECONOMY
  
       Contracts and employment at Kennedy Space Center generated
  a $1.24 billion boost to Florida's economy during Fiscal Year
  1989 ending Sept. 30. This is an increase of about $160 million
  over last year.
 
       Of KSC's expenditures, $1.07 billion went to contractors
  operating on-site at the space center. An additional $7 million
  went to off-site business in Brevard County. Other purchases and
  contracts awarded to Florida businesses outside of Brevard County
  totaled about $14 million.
 
       At least 70 percent of the on-site and Brevard County
  expenditures were estimated to have stayed in the local area in
  the form of payrolls and purchases. Space center purchases and
  contracts to businesses out of state totaled an estimated $49
  million.
 
       Civil service salaries through the end of FY89 amounted to
  $102 million, an increase of about $13 million over the previous
  year. Permanent federal employees at KSC edged over the 2,400
  mark during the same period. While 3,800 individuals were
  employed through construction and tenant jobs at KSC, the
  majority of workers at KSC are employed by the on-site
  contractors and number almost 12,000. Overall, approximately
  18,000 workers were employed at KSC through the close of the
  Fiscal Year on Sept. 30.
 
       Major contractors at KSC included Lockheed Space Operations,
  Co., the Shuttle Processing Contractor; EG&G Florida, Inc., the
  Base Operations Contractor; McDonnell-Douglas Space Systems,
  Inc., the Payload Ground Operations Contractor; and Rockwell
  International Corp., which provides Shuttle orbiter logistics
  support.

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: KSC groves sustain heavy loss during December 1989 freeze.
Date: 14 Feb 90 17:30:29 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
    [And you thought we just did aeronautics and space work! -PEY]
 
          Bruce Buckingham                             Feb. 14, 1990
 
          KSC RELEASE NO. 26 - 90
  
          KSC GROVES SUSTAIN HEAVY LOSS DURING DECEMBER 1989 FREEZE
  
               The citrus fruit harvests at KSC sustained a major loss
          because of the extremely low temperatures experienced in December
          1989. Recent projections show the losses could be greater than 60
          percent for the current season.
 
               Early and mid-season varieties of oranges experienced as
          much as a 40 percent loss. Late-season varieties, such as
          valencias, may suffer a 50 to 60 percent loss since the fruit has
          not met maturity standards and couldn't be harvested immediately
          following the freeze.
 
               Grapefruits and tangerines could see losses as high as 90
          percent. This is due to the fact that the majority of processing
          plants were attempting to salvage as much of the orange crop as
          possible, and they were not processing grapefruits or tangerines.
 
               Minor damage was reported to the citrus trees themselves and
          the recent new growth of foliage is being taken as a good sign
          the trees will have an excellent chance for full recovery without
          much dieback. Early projections call for a following season crop
          to be fairly good.
 
               In 1989, 1530 acres on KSC produced approximately 500,000
          boxes of citrus yielding gross sales of about $2.2 million.
 
               Groves on KSC are operated under lease to local growers.
          Profits from the sales of citrus grown on KSC property is
          returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Should have had more shuttle launches to keep 'em warm.

Uh, gulp, on the other hand, shuttles are not know for their robustness in
the cold, are they..

Burns

    I have yet to get a copy of this report, so some of what I have to say
    may be baseless, BUT:
    
     Just *WHAT* are the benefits of Space Exploration?
    
     First, you should understand that, emotionally, I want a vigorous
    Space Exploration program.
    
     However, if there were so many jobs created and so much money
    generated by spinoffs, why aren't businesses - who exist to make money
    - hot to fund the space program?
    
     I think it's because no one believes in the spinoffs.
    
     Why? I am not sure. Except to say that perhaps the common person on
    the street, who is looking for a job, isn't so concerned about the
    impact of velcro on his or her life.
    
     I would love to be able to give a set of cogent, sound reasons why we
    should spend money on space exploration. But I can't. And I haven't
    heard anyone else do it either.
    
     This "Man MUST explore.." stuff is worthless to the people we need to
    convince.
    
     We need something else. Something that hasn't been thought
    of....recently. By recently I mean the last 100 years. It's easy to
    emotionally FEEL that we need to explore... But that doesn't translate
    well into convincing rhetoric.
    
     I pose this as a challenge. If you are a bit angered by what I have
    said, then GOOD. Because we stand to lose the edge. Japan is on out
    heels. The most recent issue of Space Flight contains a foldout of
    Japanese launch vehicles - they are not that unsophisiticated. In fact,
    many articles and comments written in the mag were by Japanese.
    
     On the back cover is a great paining of a sophisticated, futuristic 
    spacecraft. The Company who sponsored the picture was:
    
    Shimizu Institute.
    
     Shimizu is one of the top 5 corporations in Japan.......
    
    Gregg

  Well, if you don't like velcro, how about micro computers? That's another
spinnoff of the space program that doesn't get talked about very much. They
probably would have come along anyway, but not as quickly. 

  In general many high tech advances don't happen in the private sector due to
the chicken and egg problem. No one wants to build super high tech things
because there is no market (no one will buy them). On the other hand, no one
will buy them, because there are none available so there is no point in
figuring out how to use them. 

  Having a flag ship super high tech space program pushes every science forward
and allows many things to be build for the 1st time. Advances have come in
aviation, computer technology, medicine, food storage, biology, solid state
physics, and many other areas. 

  Of course it's hard to point to individual theories and it's hard to prove
that they wouldn't have happened anyway without the space program, but I'm
convinced that the contribution is real. 

  Add to that the emotional value. The inspiration from watching the guys at
NASA during the '60s was a large reason why I went into engineering. I'm sure 
other engineers were inspired as well.

  And then of course there is the long term benefit of finding resources
outside of the small planet which we call home. Estimates are that by the turn
of the century we will be up to 6 billion people and growing. Come the year
2100, it could be pretty crowded around here if we don't have any place else to
go. 

  Science and exploration has always been a worth the effort even though they
have always been hard to justify for those who want to see their return within
the next 2 quarters. 

  George

    I would have to agree about 100% with George!
    
    One other thing.  Its a big problem I have with NASA's emphasis on the
    space station.  I think a greater emphasis on hypersonic vehicles, for
    low cost orbital entry and fast, low cost passenger travel will have a
    MUCH more profound impact on the rest of the economy than the space
    station will.  Can you imagine the size/shape of Boeing in the year
    2010 if they were able to offer a 200 seat hst with a New York to Tokyo
    flight time of 1.5 hours and a seat mile cost less than for a 747
    today?  (or indeed the implications for our world, perhaps as profound
    as the jet age itself ......)
    
    Tony

Personally, I believe the historical driver for pushing technology to the
limits has been the military (always looking for a new way to kill people, etc.)
Space exploration is a somewhat more civilized way of spending money and
pushing technology.   Exploration of outer space as a science activity
is fascinating, inspiring, and provides us with a unique point of view about
our own planet (e.g., many ecology-related activies depend a LOT on models,
and other planets, etc. provide a means to test those models under differing
conditions and see how they compare against the real thing.  Understanding
the winds on Neptune can refine wind models on earth.]  However, in a
capitalist-oriented society, "satisfying one's curiosity" won't cut it.


From a U.S. taxpayer perspective:

The space program, the *civilian* space program, in this country is quite a
tribute to Mr. Eisenhower - as it provided a means of consuming large amounts
of tax dollars towards high-techology development - but did so in the public
eye, and with an implicit goal of letting the technology get loose into
the general economy.   We'd spend nearly the same amount of money to develop
a gadget under the Pentagon's purview, but it would take many years for it
to become "declassified" enough for civilian use.   This is quite a twist
from the historical "military first" mindset.

[For the past 15 years or so, NASA puts out a monthly new magazine highlighting
the latest developments in material sciences, computer algorithms, electronic
components and systems, physical sciences, etc.  -- with the express intent
of transferring that technology/knowledge to industry and other government
agencies.  I don't think that DOD is so vocal.]

If you remove NASA and DOD, you certainly come up with a large amount of cash
that could be applied elsewhere - but short of building some form of a
national laboratory system, I'm not sure the U.S. could afford the loss
of "technological pressure" that these organizations create.  [Like George
said, it would probably happen anyway -- but I'd rather see it happen here
(in the U.S.) first.]

[My apologies, I'm drifting from "benefits of space exploration" to
 "benefits of NASA" -- certainly not the same thing!]


- dave

I don't think Boeing would be all that large in 2010 with an hst -- I just
don't believe there is a demand for that much travel (and if the demand
jumped to levels much higher than today, would 1.5hrs be worth it? -- it would
take 6 hours to get into and out of the airport! :-)

Business travel is the major check-writer for the airlines, and
video conferencing and other telecommunications is quickly supplanting
business travel.

Having a hypersonic transport to the far corners of the earth will be nice,
but I don't think it will be terribly revolutionary nor a windfall for the
airlines -- it'll just manage to keep them afloat.

Sorry for the digression,

- dave

    The real benefit of Space Exploration, is that it will lead the human
    race into the next era of human evolution/history.
    
    The time when humans will live outside of Earth's womb. The time when
    humans will inhabit the hole solar system not just Earth.
    
    And the nations / peoples that lead this movement to space, will reap
    the benifits.   While the rest will become the 3th world countries of
    tommorrow, behind the times in culture and technology................
    
    All the other benifts, (medium and short term) help justify the space
    exploration programs but in the long term are of secondary importance
    only.
    
    Gil

>    The real benefit of Space Exploration...

Oh come one now. I think it is the things we can't imagine yet because they 
don't exist today. Teflon is another thing on the list (originally developed
for heat shields on the mecury project). Imagine cooking today without it or
a derivative. WD40 is the same kind of thing, but through a less official
twist (but don't cook with it ;-). These were unthought of before they 
came about. 

There are bunches of these silly little things that make our lives easier,
simplier, and more fun. These are the benefits *I* see from the space program.

The altruistic ideal of getting of this "third stone from the sun" and exploring
in search of knowledge in the name of science are very nice and make me feel
nice. The shuttle launches and all the fancy hoopla we see on television is
very entertaining. I like these too, but it is the little things that are
likely to benfit me most during my lifetime. They are reason enough for me
to spend the NASA budget.

	-SES

RE: .7

George,

 You misunderstand. It isn't *I* who do not like velcro. I even like 
microcomuters. :^) But the plain fact is that the people who are interested 
in a Space program are a minority. How many noters do we have in this 
notesfile? 20? 50? maybe 100? A pittance. Especially when compared to the 
other non-technical notes.

 It's the same out on the street. National drive from the mass of the 
people is what's required. I'm asking what do we have to do to get it.

 You say you are convinced that tyhe contribution is real. Even if it *IS*, 
it obviously isn't real enough to business - or to the masses.

 As for the long term benefit of finding resources - you'll get a lot of 
negative feedback from a lot of people who don't like what we've done with 
the resources here.

 Yes, Exploration is HARD to justify. But not impossible.

I'm looking for arguments that would convince those *NOT* emotionally 
interested int he Space Program (like us).

RE: .9

Dave,

>  Exploration of outer space as a science activity
>is fascinating, inspiring, 

	Only to us, Dave, only to us. Remember that in the U.S. we look for 
a Big Thrill repeatedly. You and I love to watch launches. But remember how 
thrilled a lot of people were at the moon landings? Soon therafter - and 
right up until today - the thrill was lost.

 We cannot depend upon emotional highs to convince people to push for a 
vigorous space program. We need hardheaded, cinvincing arguments.

		What are they?

RE: .11

Gil,

   > The real benefit of Space Exploration, is that it will lead the human
   > race into the next era of human evolution/history.

	Agreed.

 Now, how do you convince someone not presently interested in that concept 
that he or she OUGHT to be interested? This is the same kind of reason as 
the "man was destined to explore" argument which holds little water, today.

 How can you convince someone that those who do not lead Space Exploration 
will come out to be 3rd world countries (You probably can't since it can't 
be proven)?

Re: .12

SES,

 Teflon?

 TEFLON?

 I threw out all my teflon pots and pans years ago. Know why?

 Because 2000 year old technology does a much better job of non stick 
cooking, and there is no teflon flakes in my food. My Iron skillets and my 
Iron Wok are BETTER than teflon. :^)

 But all that aside, if it is true that there are "bunches of these silly 
things that make out lives easier..." then why aren't people convinced. You 
are convinced. Why isn't everybody convinced? That's the point of my 
initial entry.....

 We have been saying for decades that the spinoffs from Space Exploration 
are many and valuable. Most people dismiss this argument.

 Is it because the argument is wrong?

Is it because they are wrong?

 What has to be done to convince people Space Exploration is in their own 
interest?

Gregg

Gregg,

>  TEFLON?

Yes teflon and it's derivatives that no longer flake into food... There are
other uses for teflon besides cooking. I recall a commerical about using 
teflon disks as a lubricating layer on some type of rail car bearing surface.

>  then why aren't people convinced.

Certainly it is because the connection to the space program is neither 
advertized or obvious to most people. Spinoffs from the space program are
just an abstract concept to folks who do not make the connection of them
to the space program. It is also notable that the use of many of these 
spinoffs have little to do (in their use) with their purpose for being 
developed for the space program.

	-SES

    SES,
    
    Well, the TEFLON frying pan I bought 2 years ago flaked away like it
    had a bad case of dandruff. Neither here nor there, though because I
    agree that TEFLON has other uses.
    
     The connection to the Space Program is advertised to the point of
    saturation. Whenever a Space advocate is on tv they talk about the
    benefits of spinoffs. But it just rolls off the nation's back.
    
     I say again - ask ANYONE, regardless of their stance on Space
    Exploration, what the benefits of Space Exploration are, and they will
    always answer SPINOFFS.
    
     But most also remain unconvinced that we need to continue the effort.
    
     It has not been a decisive convincing factor in the national mind.
    
     By the way, I submit that the spinoffs were due LARGELY to the fact
    that we were in a race with the Soviet Union. Without that pressure the
    spinoff rate would have been MUCH lower. Mainly because the efforts
    would have reamined largely unmanned. 
    
    The same effect can be seen in defense - protracted war pushes up the 
    rate of research.
    
    
    	Gregg

    Don't forget the environmental aspects. We've learned a lot about
    sticking people in a can and putting them in a hostile environment.
    True, some of this would have happened without it but once we got
    people up there we were able to see how all the things effect each
    other. A lot of the global monitoring stuff would be impossible without
    a view from above to get the big picture.
    
    Material science has also taken a big leap in the last 30+ years. This
    is the same technology that may allow us to have ceramic car engine
    parts in the future. I'm not a metallergist (sp?) but many of the
    methods used for making alloys have lead to the methods for forming the
    latest round of high temperature super conductors.
    
    Medical technology has also greatly advanced and sensor technology is
    much improved.
    
    The space program has provided the demand (we need x) that has caused
    several fields to expand their frontiers faster than they would have
    with out it.

    Jim,
    
    Ceramics for engines would be just as advanced as they are now even
    without the Space program - Jet engine manufacturers are striving to
    make ceramic turbine blades so that they can get more efficiency out of
    the engine (cuz they'll be able to run hotter)..
    
     I don't think any of you are getting my point:
    
    You are all rehashing the arguments used since time begun. You needn't
    try to convince me. The point is that the PEOPLE are not convinced by
    all the things you are talking about.
    
     Why?
    
     Is it because the benefits really do not depend upon the Space
    Program?
    
    Or is it that the populace at large simply do not see the advantages?
    
     Or is there some other reason?
    
    Gregg

Teflon:  I agree it is not very helpful for cooking.  Besides, I thought it was
developed to line missle silos, not for the civilian space program.

But besides that, I have to say that I don't think I believe in spinoffs.  Surely
if your goal was to develop microprocessors or a non-stick coating, or quality
control techniques or... it would be a lot more efficient to spend the money on
microprocessor (or whatever) research rather than on the space program.

As someone said or implied, war has a lot of good spinoffs too, but I don't want
war!

Perhaps we have to push spinoffs to attract the attention (or at least to avoid
the ire) of the person-on-the-street, but I fear that to me, the "humans must
explore" and "we never know what we will find, but history has shown exploration
to be useful" arguments are the ones that convince me.

Burns

    First, research in any scientific field is complex, and of interest to
    very few people. 

    Second, most people are not engineers or scientists. They want simple
    answers to very complex questions. Most people also look for quick
    results that benefit only them.

    Third, most people are informed only by the news media. The news media
    is only interested in making money. The media reporters are usually
    very uninformed about what they are writing about, especially in the
    high technology fields. Why should they write about some scientific
    topic if it doesn't generate fast income. Crying people at a plane
    crash is much more important to them than results from the HST. Also
    along these lines, the media when it does cover a scientific event is
    usually giving problems, not accomplishments.

    So, taking all of the above, it is of no surprise to me that the
    general public is not interested in things they don't understand.

    How to help? Education is a good start, but I don't want to get into a
    discussion here about the national attitude on education.




    							Bob

>    You are all rehashing the arguments used since time begun. You needn't
>    try to convince me. The point is that the PEOPLE are not convinced by
>    all the things you are talking about.
>    
>     Why?

I'm beginning to get confused about the point of this discourse...  You asked
for some of the benefits and several of us have pointed out a number of
them - some are non-trivial at the national level.

NASA's budget is current hanging around 15 BILLION dollars, most of it tied
up in space exploration (or space-related activities).  Some segment of the
population thinks this is a worthy allocation (others don't, most don't
care or don't know -- I don't know the allocation for the VA, for example).

Just about anyway you cut it, that's a LOT of money - so asserting that there
is "no interest in general" is false, and at the worst case there doesn't
appear to be a large number of people clamoring to dismantle NASA (whereas
you can hear a number of Democratic presidential candidates salivating over
more hacking of the DOD budgets).


>        Is it because the benefits really do not depend upon the Space
>    Program?

Some do, some do not.   Are you looking for the Grail or reasons or something?


>     Or is it that the populace at large simply do not see the advantages?

Compared to what other government programs?
    
>     Or is there some other reason?


I could list a page of government programs that could positively benefit
both the infrastructure and long-term economic growth of the country - many
of them equally or more important than NASA (except on the multi-generational
scale of needing to get off this rock).  Most people don't really care about
them either - and none of them have overwhelming and compelling reasons for
a 10x increase in their budgets.   You seem to be asserting that the Space
program suffers from some particular malady -- but I don't think that it
is alone by a long shot.



- dave

Gregg,

>  Whenever a Space advocate is on tv they talk about the
>  benefits of spinoffs. But it just rolls off the nation's back.

Ah, but the connection is backwards... they are trying to link the space
program with the spinoffs. The more effective (and nonexistant) link is
to have the spinoff be linked with the space program. For instance, if
there was some way kevlar tires could have a kevlar logo with a indication
that it was originally developed for the space program (BTW I am not sure
about Kevlar being developed for the space program...).

I agree with your point about defense spending and research, but think that
it is moderated by the earlier point (in an earlier reply) about defense
research taking a long time to get into commerical use compared to space
research.

	-SES

    RE: .21
    
    SES,
    
    >  For instance, if
>there was some way kevlar tires could have a kevlar logo with a indication
>that it was originally developed for the space program
    
    
    	THAT is an excellent idea - "Brought to you viz your tax dollars
    spent on the Space Program."
    
    Gregg

RE: Note 563.20

    Dave,
    
>I'm beginning to get confused about the point of this discourse...  You asked
>for some of the benefits and several of us have pointed out a number of
>them - some are non-trivial at the national level.

    	No. I did not. Not exactly.
    
    	What I did was to list several benefits that we always tout, and
    indicate that they do not seem to convince the populace of anything,
    and ask....WHY?.....and...What can we do or say differently.
    
>NASA's budget is current hanging around 15 BILLION dollars, most of it tied
>up in space exploration (or space-related activities).
    
    	15 Billion dollars is a pittance. A mere drop in the budgetary
    bucket. Remember we have a 1.3 TRILLION dollar budget. 
    
    >  Some segment of the
>population thinks this is a worthy allocation (others don't, most don't
>care or don't know -- I don't know the allocation for the VA, for example).

    	True, but my point is that Space is NOT a National Priority. Space
    advocates have been singing the same tune for DECADES and it hasn't
    inflammed the imagination of the populace.
    
    	Again: WHY?...and What can we do differently?
    
>Just about anyway you cut it, that's a LOT of money - so asserting that there
>is "no interest in general" is false,
    
    	I disagree because I disagree with your premise (that 15 bill is a
    lot of $$). 15 billion is the magic number that won't arouse the ire of
    the cutters of the nation.
    
    > and at the worst case there doesn't
>appear to be a large number of people clamoring to dismantle NASA (whereas
    
    	Not dismantle NASA, but I seem to remeber FREEDOM space station
    fighting for it's very life just a few months ago.
    
>you can hear a number of Democratic presidential candidates salivating over
more hacking of the DOD budgets).

    	My point EXACTLY! 300 billion is a third of a trillion - it is a
    LOT of money. Effort to cut there could net 50 billion dollars. Efforts
    to cut NASA will net you only a few billion. Now if you were a Senator
    looking for ways to save money, and you only have so much time, where
    would you put your efforts?
    
>Some do, some do not.   Are you looking for the Grail or reasons or something?

    	I am looking for a cogent, clear, decisive set of reasons why we
    ought to become a society that is focused on Exploration - outward
    thinking - or, at the VERY least, why we should have a more vigorous
    Space program.
    
    	Does this set of arguments exist?
    
>     Or is it that the populace at large simply do not see the advantages?

>You seem to be asserting that the Space
>program suffers from some particular malady -- but I don't think that it
>is alone by a long shot.

    	Nor I. Where did I say that? My focus is on the Space Program
    (well, here in this notesfile anyway. :^) )
    
     I AM interested in making a difference in the way the nation views
    Space exploration. HOWEVER, all the arguments I've heard to date fail
    to energize people's thinking.
    
    	So I'm looking for new ideas. Do you have any?
    
    Gregg

    re business travelers and hst's and videoconferencing.
    
    NONSENCE.  Spoken like a true technocrat.  Most 'business-types'
    wouldn't touch a video conference for what they wish to do business
    travel for.  Business travel is usually for MUCH more than information
    exchange, including such 'touchy-feely' things like 'relationship
    building', this will not happen via video conferencing.  
    
    low-cost HST travel will be a vital component of business travel early
    in the next century.  It will fuel a whole generation of airplanes and
    they will be boeing planes, if the U.S. is able to stay in the lead.
    
    Also, just as the 747 has expanded the tourist class travel, the hst
    will further expand it.  Right now, even a week's vacation in the
    orient (or australia for that matter) is virtually impossible.  Hst
    will change that.  
    
    re Greg's points
    
    If you compare $15B to the rest of the Federal budget, it is small.  If
    you compare it to ANY private enterprise, it is ENORMOUS.  The answer,
    I think, is not that we need to get more money to NASA, it is that we
    have to make NASA more productive.  I worked in the Federal Government,
    and was involved with NASA on occasion.  The waste involved is
    enormous.  And I'm not talking about waste like corruption, I'm talking
    about cya kind of waste, over staffing kind of waste, etc.  I would say
    it is probably somewhere on the order of 50-60% waste.  
    
    NASA's vision of its mission is also at odds with its mode of operation
    and funding level.  NASA always attempts to do more than it can
    (without structural change) and this causes delay and overspending ...
    
    I think the public favors space 'in the abstract', but it really feels
    cheated by the federal government and April 15th.  When public benefit
    from governemtn activities is obvious, funding insues, when the benefit
    is more, shall we say hidden, funding is under pressure.
    
    Tony 

    Tony,
    
    I agree with what you say. The problem is that the only "visible
    benefit" that I remember galvanizing the nation was Sputnik.
    
     Gregg

    Greg,
    
>    The problem is that the only "visible benefit" that I remember
>    galvanizing the nation was Sputnik.
    
    I think you are wrong here.  I think the moon landings certainly held
    more than a small audience captive.  I was hoping that Galelio would
    also have a positive effect.  Now, I'm not so sure ....
    
    Anyway, with a doubled productivity, the potential for "visible
    benefit" with the same budget should be 2X present, no?
    
    The real answer is not to go for the headlines, but to make NASA (and
    the whole Fed govt, for that matter) more productive.  
    
    Tony

Re: .23

>    	Not dismantle NASA, but I seem to remeber FREEDOM space station
>    fighting for it's very life just a few months ago.

I think I'm somewhat of a space enthusiast and *I* hoped that the space
station would bite the dust....  I guess it's a matter of priorities.

>    	I am looking for a cogent, clear, decisive set of reasons why we
>    ought to become a society that is focused on Exploration ...

Oh.  I have none  - primarily because I don't think that Exploration is
something society should be focusing on.


>    	So I'm looking for new ideas. Do you have any?

I guess I don't, since you seem to be advocating a position that I don't think
I agree with.   It'll be fun watching though.

- dave

p.s.

About the only thing that comes close is that I think that we should have
a 10 year Space exploration festival to keep all those people at Lockheed,
Northrup, McDonald Douglas, etc. gainfully employed while they stop building
bombers, etc and find real jobs (or, more to the point, real jobs find them).

I have no way of proving it, but I think it would have more short-term
economic benefits than letting them collect unemployment, etc.   Nah, never
mind - I'd just be postponing the inevitable.   I'd bet I'd find a reasonable
constituency in California though. :-)   You'd have little trouble impressing
upon *those* people on the benefits of space exploration: jobs.   Very
tempting as we tear down the military industrial complex.

    Tony,
    
     The Apollo 11 moon landing held the world captive.....for about a
    month. There was a lot going on back then.
    
     After Apollo 11, interest in moon landings dropped geometrically. To
    the point where, as I'm sure you know, a couple were cancelled. That
    was more of a sensation than a driving force. I remember Wally Schirra
    talking about missions to mars in a few years when Armstrong was still
    on the moon. We all know what happened.
    
     As for your ideas concerning the amount of waste, I would not be at
    all surprised.....
    
    Dave,
    
     I admit to being a bit too expressive. :^) I want a far more vigorous,
    agressive and farsighted Space Program. I agree with you that Freedom
    should not be built UNLESS (and here we may diverge) someone comes up
    with a rational use for the thing.
    
    	Gregg

  There's no doubt that there is waste in NASA like everywhere else in
government, but there's next to no chance of solving that problem. The reason
there is waste is because of the budgeting process used by government. In the
private sector, companies have to show a profit so managers all up and down the
line are rewarded for being efficient and showing a good return on investment.
Show a profit and you get promoted to run a bigger empire. 

  In government, you are not rewarded for saving money. Save money and your
staff shrinks meaning your bosses staff shrunk. In government, the way to
advance is to show that you need more money and more people (whether you really
do or not). That makes your empire bigger thus making your bosses empires
bigger up the line. Having shown you can run a bigger empire, you get promoted.

  That is a fact of government that we have to live with which makes it a fact
of life that the space program will live with as long as it is run by the
government. And that will continue as long as space research fails to show a
profit. 

  The base noter raises a very tough question. We've given the common answers,
spinnoffs, driving technology, man's need to explore, etc. The problem is that
for many those are not good enough, in some cases because people can't follow
the thread to see the benefits down the road and in come cases because they
don't care about the benefits.

  However, things are not all that bad. As someone pointed out, $15 billion is
not a lot in Government terms, but it's not peanuts either. Many people will
never be convinced that the space program is worth while, but enough seem to
like it enough that we can keep moving forward, admittedly at a slow pace. 

  George

    It seems that we agree that there are a lot of benefits from Space
    be it in the short, medium, and long term.  What  lacks  is public
    interest or simple awareness of these benefits.
    
    As a previous reply sugested, there seems to be something that can
    be done  to  rise public  awareness of some of these benefits, the 
    spinoffs, by requiring that all be labelled  "Developed for Space"
    just like products are marked "made in USA".
    
    This seems to me anyway to be something  worthwhile doing, now how
    to we go about sugesting this to the appropriate people. !!!
    
    Gil

    Gil,
    
     You've asked the proper questions. The fact is that I have come to the
    conclusion that I have not, as yet, made a difference. And that talking 
    with other space enthusiasts only, is not enough. It is worse than not
    enough because we are a cozy group that understands each other and are
    in more or less agreement. This notes file leads me into being insular.
    
     The challenge, the goal, the Grail, is to make a difference. To my way
    of thinking differences can be made not by talking only to each other,
    but by convincing the unconvinced...impressing the unimpressed.
    
     To do that, we need a better argument, or a better delivery, or both.
    
    Gregg

    re .29
    
    George,
    
    Perhaps you are correct that you can never improve the productivity
    problem with NASA, that the only way to fix the problem is to make
    space profitable.  If this hypothesis is correct, what are the
    implications for NASA programs that we should support?
    
    My take on that is we should scrap the space station and work on VERY
    low cost to orbit launch vehicles.  And on those things that NASA does
    well, space science.
    
    Tony

    Does anybody know where I can get basic Impulse and time information
    for the Minutemen and Peacemaker missiles? I have this feeling that
    there might soon be extra laying around doing nothing..... I was
    wondering if they could be used in some capacity since they are already
    built. I imagine they have a very short burn time and low thrust when
    compared to Titan or Shuttle SRB's, but perhaps they could be used for
    Delta strap-ons. The fact that they are multistaged may be a problem
    too.
    
    Gregg

  I agree that Freedom has problems. Maybe a more cost effective way to go
would be for NASA and the former Soviet Space program to merge and have the
Shuttle now and the Space Plane later fly people up to Mir. Someone could build
an adapter so that Columbus could be flown with Mir instead of Freedom.

  That should save a bundle.

  George

    The main problem I see with Freedom is that there is no REAL tangible
    use for it other than gaining expertise in building space stations
    (which is useful, but not enough).
    
     We should start with a long range goal, and then work backwards
    towards the steps needed to achieve that goal. Gemini was an
    engineering solution to solving the problems and gaining the expertise
    necessary to a successful Apollo program.
    
     Political considerations are always present, and I feel we actually
    have good political reasons available to us. Such as:
    
    - the U.S. is thought of as next quarter only thinkers. We have the
    Aereospace edge, and we should translate it into forward thinking
    leapfrogs that leave the Japanese, and everybody else hopelessly
    behind.
    
    - The Republicans might well win the 92 election, but they could use
    Space to enhance a shaky image - jobs, education, all the things Bush
    said he wanted to be can be demonstrated in one arena - Space.
    
    - The Democrats are an amalgam of visions and directions. THEY could
    use Space as a focal point, to give direction to their party in an
    election year. They could use it the same way the republicans could use
    it. (in fact I'm writing letters to both parties :^) suggesting the
    same strategies)
    
    - Jobs, jobs, jobs for a pretty small investment. 
    
    - relief for parts of the flagging Defense industry.
    
    - Pork galore for the Legislators
    
    - No one doubts our technical prowess after Desert Storm. In fact,
    people feel pretty good about that (unlike previous years).
    
    	These are only examples. I believe that, contrary to current
    thinking, the opportunity for successfully pushing an aggressive Space
    Program are BETTER THAN EVER. The time is ripe. It is a propitious
    moment.
    
    Gregg

>Why do we need a Space Program?

Since I am an avid Space enthusiast, I couldn't resist sharing my
thoughts with you on this subject.  

The planet Earth is a very fragile ecosystem.  It can be disrupted
quite suddenly, and mankind could be wiped out in the blink of an
eye.  Let's take the worst case scenario.  A comet is on a collision
course with the Earth.  Will we be able to detect it in time? 
Will we be able to divert it from it's path of destruction?
Considering today's state of technology, probably not.  Especially
if it was traveling at a high rate of speed, close to the escape
velocity of the sun.

This is only one scenario in the possible extinction of man.  I could
go on and on about different ways we could get eliminated from the big
picture, but the point is - WE NEED THE SPACE PROGRAM TO INSURE THE
SURVIVAL OF HUMANITY!

Remember the Dinosaurs - let's not let it happen to us.

    Ron,
    
     No one can argue with you, BUT......
    
     What do you think would happen if you walked up to a person and told
    them that?
    
     Or what do you think would happen if you told that to most Senators and
    Reps in Congress?
    
     Unfortunately, I think you (and I) would be scoffed at.
    
     I'm looking for something new.... novel....convincing. And it might
    not be the top priority on our list either.
    
    Gregg

    By the way..........
    
    
     I heard on NPR this morning that Crippen has announced the elimination
    of 5000 people at NASA (hopefully through attrition) in order to pay
    for the Lunar base and the Mars Trip.
    
    Sad. but true.
    
    Gregg

 This is a portion of a note entered in note 1041.19 of SOAPBOX by Tim 
Cockerham. He gave me permission to copy it here. 

 I think it expresses quite well some of what I have been trying to say 
concerning the feelings of many (if not most) people, towards the Space 
Program.

 He was talking about the flood of workers released if we drastically 
reduce the Military....." are you planning on what these ex-troops are
going to do after?  There is NO way the American job market can absorb this
many unemployed (with the exception of the floundering space program, and
we all know where that is at and what priority it carries, and to mention
the megabucks that would need to be poured into it with little tangible
gain in the short to medium term). "


 The last phrase is the telling phrase.

Gregg

  Employment is not an argument that's going to get you very far. First of
all, NASA types tend to be highly educated and people will feel that they are
likely to get other jobs. There is some truth to that argument.

  Also, massive cuts in NASA and the Military would result in either government
spending on other projects (which would provide new jobs) or lower government
spending, which would allow tax breaks. The Tax breaks would give companies
in the private sector more money to invest which means new jobs.

  Obviously there would be some displacement and unemployment while all this
got sorted out, but eventually the qualified people would be employed, even
if it meant new training.

  The bottom line is that the standard of living of the average American will
only go down if there is a decrease in production of goods consumed by people
or goods which in turn produce things consumed by people. Since the Space
program and Military don't produce anything that contributes to our standard of
living (today anyway) cutting them both would not make a dent in the consumable
part of our GNP. That means that those people could be reemployed elsewhere and
the money used to pay them would not add to inflation. 

  The Space program is almost impossible to sell if you look at short (1 year)
or mid (2-5 year) term economics and it's difficult to prove much of anything
when talking about long term economics since there are so many unknown factors
that effect the economy 6 or more years out.

  About the best you can do is to say that flag ship engineering projects have
a positive effect on the advancement of science in particular and man kind in
general and that very long term (50-100 years) it will be a big benefit to live
somewhere other than Earth. 

  As it's been mentioned, many will scoff at those kinds of ideas, but enough
people believe in it that we seem to be able to justify a moderate level of
spending on space research. A decreasing military budget and more cooperation
with Russia and ESA should make things easier.

  George

    re .39
    
    " are you planning on what these ex-troops are going to do after? 
    There is NO way the American job market can absorb this many
    unemployed"
    
    With all due respect, this is nonsense.   If he were to say "There is
    NO way the American job market can absorb this many unemployed, within
    2 weeks, then ok.  Simple fact is that releasing these troopers into
    the broader economy from the do nothing economy of the DOD should
    INCREASE our economy.  This kind of arguement is one of those that
    people who want to protect the MIC status quo constantly harp on.  I'm
    always upset by it because it shows little or no understanding of how
    the economy works and what the costs of the MIC actually are.
    
    If you are worried about job creation, there are lots better ways, like
    highway construction ....
    
    Now back to our regularily scheduled notesconference.
    
    Tony

    Tony,
    
     Since I took the quote out of the context of the discussion, there's 
    no way you could have known that the quote was responding to "Close
    down all the foreign bases NOW and bring the boys home."
    
    
    Gregg

    Have you guys heard anything about this.
    
    I caught a bit of a news story about NASA layoffs, something about NASA 
    laying off 5000 people mostly from the Shuttle program area.
    
    Re.34,  by the way most of the Space Station cost, is getting materials
    and people up there (i.e. Shuttle)
    
    From our point of view, the thing to do isn't buy the MIR space station
    but to buy their  launch capabilities both the old  Protons and the new
    big booster ... then we could take our time developing the Space Plane
    and a new HLV.
    
    Gil

  Regarding the layoffs, I read that as well. It was in the Boston Globe and I
thought there was a message in this file as well but maybe I remember that
wrong. The idea is to cut the Shuttle program to allow money for a Lunar base
or Mars mission. It's a really bad idea. Once Congress sees that they can fly
the Shuttle with the smaller staff, there is no guarantee that they will allow
NASA to keep the money for a Lunar base. 

  As for the Proton, we really don't need their launchers. We have our own
expendables which are just as good as theirs. Reverting to expendables for the
manned program would be pretty expensive. You'll notice that the Soviets never
launched a crew of seven. In fact, they seem limited to two at a time. It would
take at least a Saturn V class launcher to fly a crew that big with any
reasonably safe support system. Also, their Soyez system is not all that
versatile. It's difficult for them to do things like changing landing sites, fly
at night, or respond to emergency situations. Also, the living conditions
aboard their system are a bit crude and the landings a bit rough. Hermes may
be the best of both worlds, small ship, expendable launchers, runway landing,
etc.

  George

    George,
    
    According to Roald Sagdeev - head of the soviet Space program for a
    while, the cost of launching a pound of payload on their launchers is
    much smaller than on ours.
    
     He suggests cooperation between the 2 programs - soviet launchers and
    American payloads.
    
    Gregg

  It's no surprise that they can launch a payload cheap since they are cash
poor and can hire engineers for small amounts of western currency. Also they
can buy supplies, which come from within the old Soviet empire, for much less.
However, for them to upgrade to NASA standards for man launches would probably
involve the U.S. putting so much into their old launch systems that it would
not be worth the extra money. 

  I agree, however, that joint missions would be worth while since their space
station design makes so much more sense than ours. A good combination might
involve their station, their proton launchers for unmanned supply missions,
our Shuttle for crew changes and supplies, ESA's Hermes for small crew changes
and ESA's Columbus as a space station as a station add on.

  George

    I was reading the latest issue of Air and Space (a Smithsonian
    Magazine), and there was an article on the reasons for returning to the
    moon. They give a bit of history.....
    
     ...and they say exactly what I've been trying to get across
    (unsuccessfully) in this note. I quote:
    
     They talk about the push to return to the moon, and how, in 1989, it
    began to look like it was seriously considered. They talk about Bush's
    July 20th statement saying that a return to the moon is one of the
    Primary objectives of SEI....
    
    "But in the months that followed, NASA faltered. The agency's 90 day
    report, expected to provide a viable plan for executing the Bush
    initiative, was widely criticized...........
    
     And amid the reports launch timetable and mission descriptions
    something was missing: A RATIONALE THAT WOULD HELP SELL THE SEI TO
    CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC [caps mine]. 
    
    ...........Enter the Synthesis Group, a 27 member panel created in 1990
    at the request of VP Dan Quayle, to  GIVE THE VISION THING ANOTHER
    TRY."
    
     So, fellow SPACE noters, you see that as on 1990, we were still trying
    to generate a vision that would help sell Space Exploration. It
    continues:
    
    "REGARDLESS OF AGE EVERYONE SENSED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TASK - TO FIND
    A CONVINCING RATIONALE FOR THE LONG AND EXPENSIVE EFFORT OF HUMAN
    EXPANSION INTO THE SOLAR SYSTEM [caps mine].
    
     The rest of the article goes on to describe the findings of the SG -
    return to the moon first before we go to mars. 
    
     And a rationale: Go back to the moon to rescue earth.
    
     Some of the SG want to generate energy from solar cells on the mon and
    beam it back to earth. Others want to mine helium-3 from the lunar soil
    (doesn't exist in big quantities on earth), and send it to earth where
    it can be used in Fusion reactors. Present day fusion designs tend to
    generate tons of neutron (or would if they existed) which would destroy
    the containment vessel. This doesn't happen when helium-3 and deuterium
    is used.
    
     Still, I'm not sure even this would galvanize the public. After all,
    there ARE no fusion reactors to fuel.....
    
    Still, it's a start. But this is the gist of what I have been trying to
    say - we have NO CONVINCING ARGUMENT for going back into space.
    
    And I want one - badly.
    
    Gregg

    Gregg,
    
    Why bemoan the fact that there is no convincing arguement to return to
    space?
    
    Figure out how to get to space WITHOUT a convincing arguement!
    
    I think this is within our reach.  The answer is not spending $4B/year
    on Freedom and $4B per year launching the shuttle.  I think the answer
    is to devote that money (or a fraction therof) to the next generation
    of space vehicle.  If you can achieve launch costs of less than $10/lb,
    then the convincing arguements will be easier, because the cost will be
    lower.  
    
    I think we have the cart before the horse.  Advances in transportation
    preceeded advances in exploration.  We are attempting to use
    exploration activities to advance transportation.  
    
    AND the new transportation technologies can be useful here on Earth.
    
    I think it is criminal that the NASP, X-30 funding proposed for FY92 is
    $4 M, that's right, M, not B like the others.  Talk about backwards
    priorities.
    
    Tony       

RE: <<< Note 563.47 by MERINO::GERMAIN "Improvise! Adapt! Overcome!" >>>

>    we have NO CONVINCING ARGUMENT for going back into space.
>    
>    And I want one - badly.

This strikes me as backwards. You want to be in space but don't have a
convincing reason to be. Then why do you want to be in space? Perhaps if you
analyzed your feelings for wanting it, you might discover the reason (that at
least applies to you).
						-- Tom

    Tom,
    
     Not reason - argument. I have my reasons - they are much like the
    reasons listed by others here. I want to explore. I want to fly to
    Mars. And I want to design the ships that will take me there.
    
     BUT, we also need arguments (or reasons) for those members of Congress
    and the Public that are NOT space minded. Who are not exploration
    minded. Who don't give Space a single thought at any time.....
    
    but who vote - both in Congress and out of congress.
    
     You see?
    
     The world is loaded with visionaries and enthusiasts - unfortunatly we
    are not enough....
    
    Gregg

    RE: .48
    
    Tony,
    
     Because, in our society, you can't do too much without public support.
    I agree with you that Freedom is a waste, and the Shuttle isn't enough
    of what it was supposed to be.
    
     Without a convincing argument, why would anyone spend the money on a
    new lift capability (besides - it may be a mistake - the idea (to me)
    is to no longer think of the earth as a starting and ending point. But
    that's another discussion).
    
     You make good points about the need for cheap transport. Your
    priorities might be the right ones. There are also other booster
    systems soon to become available (can MX and Minuteman boosters be used
    as SRB's?).
    
    Gregg

  Come on guys, things are not that glum. Sure it would be nice if things were
going faster, but NASA is getting enough funding to keep things moving along.
Considering the shape of the economy, that's not all that bad. 

  As for reasons, we've given the reason. The blunt fact is that right now
there is very little in the way of short term reasons why we would be better
off with a space program. All of the justification is either long term benefits
or short term gains in non-practical types of scientific knowledge. In other
words, if we continue, some day there will be space colonies and heavy helium
for fusion reactors, but for today, we can manufacture Tang without a space
program.

  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the space program, in fact I'm the one guy
left in the world that still things the Shuttle was a good idea and that we
should build more, but you have to be realistic. The benefits are either
abstract or long term. Jumping up and down yelling "please give me an argument
as to why the space program is good for practical economics today" is not going
to manufacture such a reason. It just doesn't exist.

  George

    Gregg,
    
    My belief is that the money you spend on new lift technology HAS a big
    potential for spin-off.
    
    If we are building the X-30, with Boeing as one of the primes, then
    they have the direct potential to commercialize the technology as 'the
    Orient Express'.  You even write the development contracts to give them
    'intellectual property rights'.  Heck, maybe you even 'dispose in
    place' some of the equipment used to build the prototype X-30's, giving
    them a further leg up.
    
    You sell the investment in a new transport system as industrial policy
    to keep the U.S. ahead of the Japanese.  They are investing mega bucks
    to take away the U.S. predominance in aerospace technology, which is
    one of the few finished goods areas where we have a positive trade
    balance with Japan.
    
    I think industrial policy will make a comeback with this recession. 
    Lassie-faire does not work, over the long haul.  Most people should
    know that by now.  Heck, even in the 80's we never had lassie-faire, we
    had a military industrial policy.  It sucked our competitiveness dry.
    
    Don't confuse cheap boosters with cheap launch capability.  Launch
    involves far more than just the booster.  NASP addresses a lot of them,
    like facilities and facilities support.  Besides, there is just a
    limited supply of icbm boosters available.  NOONE would make a business
    decision on such a limited supply.  You need technologies that       
    permanently reduce the cost of entry to space, and reduce it
    dramatically, probably 100 fold.  You cannot do that with reconditioned
    ICBM boosters.
    
    Tony

    tony,
    
     My notion concerning the ICBM boosters was to use them to increment
    our lift abilities in the interval between now and when we have the new
    lift abilities.......
    
    
    ........whenever that is.
    
    Gregg

From:	DECPA::"[email protected]" 13-MAY-1992 
        15:12:23.13
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	NASA, Johns Hopkins unveil system to help visually impaired (Forwarded)

Barbara Selby
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                               May 13, 1992
(Phone:  703/557-5609)

Myron Webb
Stennis Space Center, Miss.
(Phone:  601/688-3341)

RELEASE:  92-65

NASA, JOHNS HOPKINS UNVEIL SYSTEM TO HELP VISUALLY IMPAIRED

     A pair of computer-driven glasses, derived from the space
program, that can help millions of Americans afflicted with certain
low vision problems, was unveiled today in Baltimore, Md.  The Low
Vision Enhancement Project is a product of NASA's Technology Transfer
Program in cooperation with NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center,
Miss., and the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore. 

     Scientists from Stennis Space Center and the Wilmer Eye Institute
used NASA technology developed for computer processing of satellite
images along with head- mounted vision enhancement imaging systems
originally generated for potential use on Space Station Freedom.  This
transfer of technology will make it possible to improve the visual
capability of low-vision patients by appropriately enhancing and
altering images to compensate for the patient's impaired eyesight. 

     "This is what we call an enabling technology.  It will have an
impact far beyond this one application," said Dr. Doug Rickman, NASA's
Low Vision Project Manager at Stennis Space Center's Science and
Technology Laboratory. 

     It is estimated that more than 3 million Americans today are
visually handicapped.  By the turn of the century, this number is
expected to grow as the population ages.  Yet, more than 80 percent of
those who are legally blind retain some vision.  Many of these
potentially could be helped by this new technology. 

     The low vision enhancement system consists of a computer, an
auxiliary camera and a pair of wrap-around video screens worn like eye
glasses by the person suffering from a particular visual malady. 

     The camera sends the images to a computer-based system.  The
computer, already programmed to correct for the visual problem of the
individual, manipulates the images and sends them back to the patient.
 They are displayed on small video screens which have roughly the same
field of view as eyeglasses.  "But instead of looking through ground
glass, you'll be looking through a computer," said Rickman. 

     One example, Rickman explained, is the brightness of white paper
with black print, such as in books and magazines, making it difficult
for some to see properly.  "If the paper was black and the print
white, they would be able to function much better," he said.  "For
many years, people have been going to their eye care specialists and
the physician would say, 'I know what your problem is.  I know what's
going to happen to you, but there isn't anything I can do to help you.'" 

     Glasses do not correct this type of problem, but by using a
computer-driven system, the white of a page and the black of the print
can be reversed, allowing the patient to visually function more normally. 

     The low vision enhancement system will provide custom-tailored
images of the outside world for low vision patients.  The system is
expected to be used by people who have lost their peripheral or side
field vision.  This problem is associated with glaucoma, an increase
of fluid pressure inside the eye that damages the optic nerve, and
retinitis pigmentosa, a progressive degeneration of the retina, the
delicate light-sensitive nerve layer lining the eye. 

     The system also could benefit patients with central vision loss,
the part of vision normally used for reading.  These patients may have
macular degeneration associated with aging or diabetic retinopathy, in
which diabetes causes swelling and leakage of fluid in the center of
the retina. 

     The low vision enhancement system is expected to be available to
the public in about 18 months and cost about $3,000 - $4,000.  For
information about medical applications, contact the Lions Vision
Center at 410/614-0992. 

     Representatives from the Wilmer Eye Institute, an internationally
recognized academic ophthalmologic center specializing in basic
research and clinical care, first met with NASA officials in 1985 to
see if any technology was available to better understand visual
performance in low vision and to develop improved prosthetic visual
devices.  NASA and the Wilmer Eye Institute then began developing a
laboratory-based, real-time image processing system to enhance life
for low vision sufferers. 

     Stennis Space Center developed the low vision enhancement system
design and the computer software.  Stennis manages NASA's portion of
the Low Vision Enhancement Project for the Office of Commercial
Programs' Technology Transfer Program, which seeks to broaden and
accelerate technology transfer in the public interest. 

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                                   July 16, 1992

Jim Elliott
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

RELEASE:  92-115


        A group of dedicated Alaskans has started a 3-year experiment that
ultimately could result in saving the lives of thousands of campers, hunters,
boaters and others.

        The Alaskans will test the use of a small emergency radio transmitter,
known as a Personal Locator Beacon or PLB, to communicate with a 10-year- old
search and rescue satellite system that up to now has been used primarily for
aircraft and ship emergencies.

        "We are confident the experiment will prove the value of these
emergency devices," explained Wayne Hembree, NASA's Search and Rescue Mission
Manager at Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

        "Use of the beacons by people in remote areas undoubtedly will save
lives," he continued. "Their use also will lower search times and costs and
reduce the dangers to personnel conducting the rescue missions."

        The experiment is being carried out with the cooperation of NASA, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Air Force and the
U.S. Coast Guard.

International Program Successful

        The satellite system, an international program known as COSPAS- SARSAT,
has been responsible for saving more than 2,300 lives since it was started in
1982.  Principal partners in this program are Canada, France, Russia and the
United States.

        That PLB program calls for four low-Earth-orbiting satellites to be in
operation.  Currently, there are six satellites -- three Russian and three U.S.
-- circling the Earth in polar orbit.  However, only four are fully
operational, the other two having lost some of their capabilities.

        The Russian satellites primarily are navigational aids for that
nation's ocean-going merchant marine.  The U.S. satellites are meteorological
satellites.  In both cases, the search and rescue equipment "piggy backs" on
the satellites as a secondary payload.

        When an aircraft or ship is in distress, an emergency signal normally
will be transmitted.  The signal will be "heard" by one of the satellites,
which relays the information to ground stations around the world.  Alert
information, including identification and location, is forwarded by the ground
stations to search and rescue forces, and rescue efforts are begun.

        Until now, the only government-approved emergency beacons are Emergency
Locator Transmitters (ELTs) for aircraft and Emergency Position Indicating
Radio Beacons for ships.  The PLB experiment is designed to prove the need for
a lightweight beacon that can be carried and used in an emergency by
individuals.

        The test is being funded by the North Slope Borough Search and Rescue
Department (NSBSAR), according to Charles Caldwell, the project coordinator for
the borough.  NSBSAR provides year-round assistance to overdue hunters,
boaters, whaling crews and aircraft, employing a staff of 14 personnel, three
aircraft and two helicopters.

Most Remote Alaskan Area

        The North Slope Borough is one of the most remote areas of Alaska. It
covers 92,000 square miles (an area about the size of Utah) and has what might
be described as eight towns and villages.  There are no roads to speak of, and
travel is accomplished by amphibious vehicle in the summer and by snowmobile in
the winter, Caldwell explained.

        Twenty beacons, which currently cost between $1,200 and $1,700, will be
used in the experiment.  The beacons, which transmit the emergency signal on a
406 Megahertz (Mhz) frequency and have a 121.5 Mhz signal to allow search
parties to "home-in" on the location, will be loaned to qualified applicants.

        The beacons not only will help save lives, Caldwell explained, but also
will lower costs of search operations.  The operational cost of one of the
borough's helicopters, for example, runs $3,000 an hour.  Multiply that by the
number of missions flown in a year, and the savings could really mount up, he
explained.

        During the first 6 months of this year, he continued, the borough
conducted 30 search missions, rescuing 29 persons.  In most cases, he
explained, the search plane or helicopter proceeded to the village nearest the
emergency, picked up a spotter and began the search.  The search under those
circumstances can take hours or even days.

        With a PLB, he said, the emergency signal would be picked up by a
satellite within 55 minutes, the information sent to a rescue coordination
center, and the rescue party could be at the scene shortly thereafter.  In
pre-experiment trials, Caldwell said, the PLB has brought searchers to within
six-tenths of a mile and never more than 1.3 miles of the distress situation.
Caldwell said the borough hopes to petition the Federal Communications
Commission to approve the use of PLBs in about a year.

        Caldwell and the search and rescue people face somewhat of a
paradoxical situation.  They do not want to see people in emergency situations
on the one hand.  However, statistics are needed to show the value of the PLBs
by an accounting of the number of rescue missions and lives saved to support
the petition.

        Caldwell knows what a person experiences in an emergency of that type.
Since 1983, using the aircraft ELT for signalling a satellite, he has been
rescued three times when something went wrong with his aircraft or another
plane in the rescue party.

From:	DECWRL::"[email protected]" "Tihamer T. Toth-Fejel" 12-NOV-1992 10:38:52.46
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	Illusory spinoffs: Comments and action invited

As space activists, we gotta know both sides of the argument. I never
wanted to go to space because of teflon.  What we need to do is sell
our vision of a space-faring civilization. 

Letters to New Scientist, anyone?

------- Forwarded Message

Date: 11 Nov 1992 23:49:39 -0500
From: [email protected] (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Study says: Space research investment marginal return
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Errors-To: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

    Chance spin-offs are not a good enough reason for investing in
space research, reports Germany's Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and
Innovation Research, the ISI, in Karlsruhe.  The ISI's analysis of
patent citations concludes that space research produces no more - and
perhaps fewer - advances in Earth-bound technology than other areas of
research. 

    "Politicians have used spin-offs to justify funding for manned
space flight", says Ulrich Schmoch, who led the project.  "But the
study's results mean they must now rely more heavily on direct,
scientific arguments for space flight, like its usefulness in
observing the Earth or repairing satellites". 

    ISI researchers identified 3000 patents for advances in space
technology filed since 1988, and then looked for patents that cited
one or more of the source patents.  Those that were for spin-offs into
other fields numbered between 20 and 30 per cent of the original 3000.
"It's difficult to express in percentages because the definition of a
spin-off is subjective", says Smooch. 

    The researchers used patent citation analysis because they thought
it would be less biased than other methods, such as asking companies
if they use space research.  "The officials issuing the patents didn't
know we were going to do a study", says Schmoch. When the ISI used the
same method to investigate transfers from research on sensors for
robots, it found three times as many spin-offs. 

    According to the report, some space research, such as fittings for
remote-controlled telescopic arms, heat-resistant materials and
control technologies, did find other uses. Gas turbines, for example,
can now operate at higher temperatures because the surface of the
blades is treated by a process developed for space flight.  The
air-cooled motorcycle helment is an even more down-to-earth example,
says Schmoch. 

    The project was commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Research
and Technology, but in 1990 responsibility for it was transferred to
the German Space Agency, DARA.  Although the study was completed in
April, it remained under wraps until this month.  Franz-Peter
Spaunhost of DARA says the delay had nothing to do with the agency. 
"This is not a DARA study", he says.  "It is something we inherited
from the federal ministry". 

    "In 1988, Germany didn't have the budgetary problems it does
today", Schmoch says.  "That's a recent addition to the discussion on
whether to stop funding space flight".  [New Scientist 10/31/92, 6] 

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

Gregory Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization

------- End of Forwarded Message

[email protected]     (Tihamer T. Toth-Fejel)
Industrial Technology Institute, P.O. Box 1485, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
office: (313) 769-4248   fax: (313) 769-4064   home: (313) 662-4741
*----*----*----*Think of it as evolution in action*----*----*----*----*

Article: 53574
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: [email protected] (Michael Robert Williams)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:22:22 GMT
 
I love being asked this question, especially by people who are
against the space program for reasons like "we have people starving
in the streets..."
 
I read an article in the British Interplanetary Society Journal about
a guy named Forrester (or was it Fisher?) at MIT who had done some
predictive world modelli, tracking several variables like population,
pollution, natural resource usage, standard of living, etc. Some of
his assumptions may have been...incorrect, buI didn't see anything
that looked grossly unreasonable. He projected the world 500 years 
into the future to see what trends we could expect (yeah yeah, I know
don't trust computer numbers at first glance, especially extrapolations
that far in the future, but even with that caveat, the numbers are
scary).
 
Assuming we do nothing to change our ways, and do not expand into space,
in about 100 years society will start to decline, as pollution, over-
population and dwindling natural resources take their toll. In 300
years we will have entered a new Dark Age�� from which it is extermely 
unlikely that we will escape. Our resources will be so scant that they
will not be able to support our technology base, and the environment
will be so poisoned that we'll have a hard time feeding ourselves.
Forrester's model projected a world population of just under one billion
(stable) and a standard of living worse than during the middle ages.
 
Assuming we recycle everything we can, drastically cut our birth rate,
conserve natural resources and enact stiff environmental protection
laws, all we can do is forstall the inevitable. I think, though, that
we can last another 1500 years or so before The Crash.
 
However, if you assume that we behave like our normal selfish selves,
BUT expand into space to a) dump our garbage, b) prospect for resources
c) find someplace to live, and d) house our dirty industries, then in
500 years time, according to the models, we can be living in a golden 
age of plenty and wealth, able to support a population roughly 15 times
what it is now with a standard of living much higher than it is now.
 
Now for the bad news. If we delay space utilization for 50 years, at 
that point we will have passed the point of no return; at that point
we will not be able to afford (in terms oscarce resources, manpower,
industry, etc) to save ourselves, and the Big Crash gets us anyway.
 
Now, was Forrester a visionary or Malthusian-doomsayer? I don't know,
nor do I care. Much like Descarte's argument for why you should worship
God, even if you don't believe in Him, I think we should pay attention
to Forrest, because I would hate to find out the hard way that he
was right.
 
I'm going to be out of town for the next month; e-mail flames, comments,
etc. and I'll get back to you when I can.
 
In Real Life:Mike Williams     | Perpetual Grad Student
e-mail      :[email protected]|   - It's not just a job, it's an indenture
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you ever have a world of your own, plan ahead - don't eat it." ST:TNG

    Re .-1
    
    I think that by properly managing things the human race can live
    on Earth almost forever (or 4 Billion years until the Sun dies out).
    
    But the problem is that "properly managing things" may not be 
    possible, human nature being what it is. And in any case even then 
    it would mean drastic changes in the way people live, in order to
    attain total equilibrum with Earth's resources. Not to talk about 
    the killing of the human spirit that would entail, Earth would no
    longer be the Nursery of the hunam race but rather its prison.
    
    Space no only provides the resources for population and industrial
    growth, but more importantly it provides a place for the growth of
    the human spirit, and its need to always reach beyond the current
    limits. 
    
    Space also provides a relief valve away from earth bound politics,
    allowing all of Earth's people to share the dream.  A much SANER
    alternative then military build ups, escalations, and wars. I for one
    haven't forgotten that while the USA-Russia cold war seems to be over,
    the ability to kill the human race is still there ...
    
    Gil
    
    
    Gil

  I'm all for space exploration but let's be realistic. Space research will not
solve these problems. 

  Because of the amount expensive technology needed just to keep an individual
alive for a day anywhere off our planet's surface it's unlikely that our
ability to create space habitats and deliver people to those habitats will
ever exceed our birth rate. 

  Sure we may be able to create a large colony on Mars with a very high
standard of living or we may be able to create some pretty spiffy space
stations, but they are not going to hold billions of people. Thousands
probably, tens of thousands possibly, hundreds of thousands, unlikely but
billions, no way. And we haven't even gone through the millions. 

  Also I'd be weary of the Utopian ideal that's often put forward in SciFi
works that says "if we could only start all over we'd put all this politics and
greed behind us". History shows us that Utopian ideas like that never work. The
problem is that where ever man goes, he takes himself with him. 

  Again, I'm all for an aggressive program of space research but short of
building Ringworld and creating a mass teleporter that can move millions of
people at a time, the earth will be populated by increasing billions of people
until some catastrophe wipes us out. 

  George 

    Re -.1
    
    I agree with you that space is not a magic cure to evrything, and
    that by itself space exporation/exploitation cannot solve the worlds
    problems.
    
    But it can be a big BIG help over the long run. Just look at the
    Apollo Moon program, only 12 people walked on the moon and only 24
    orbited it, but it changed the way the world thinks. 
    
    And I completly disagree with you when you say that only a few 
    thousand people will ever be able to live outside of Earth. It can't
    be done quickly, but in a 100 to 200 years, there is no reason why
    more people could not be living off Earth then on it. And that means
    a lot of Billions ... with the proper technology space resources
    can support numbers like these easily.
    
    Of course even this will not help if humans decide to breed like rats,
    humans like any other animal can ,if given a chance, expand to fill any
    available niche darn quickly. (-; Nature's solution to this is to kill
    off the excess, the only human solution is to stabilize the birth rate.
    
    Luckilly this is already being done in the industrialized nations, for
    the rest with or without industrialization and with or without space
    they will have to do the same soon enough or face famines and what not.
    
    Gil

  First before anyone gets wound up too much thinking we have a general space
program argument on our hands, narrow your focus. No one in this file is saying
that Apollo wasn't a wonderful program. We are ONLY debating the degree to
which the space program can solve the problem of overpopulation on earth. 

  There's an old saying that says that if the people in a nation of a billion
or more were to march into the sea 2 at a time the line would never end because
the net increase population due to the normal rate at which birth exceeds death
would replace those lost to the salty stroll. And that's not allowing time for
luggage and/or furniture. 

  I saw an estimate in LIFE that if everything went perfectly, Mars could be
geoformed a habitable planet in only 150 years. Now assuming that we didn't
start for 50 years (a reasonable assumption) that would mean that 200 years
from now we'd have an entire small planet capable of holding tons of people. 

  The problem is that the earth's population doubles every 50 years or so which
means that by the time Mars was inhabitable we would have grown from 5 billion
to 20 billion people. Even if we moved 3-4 billion to Mars we would end up with
two crowed planets instead of 1. The problem would not be solved. 

  And I don't see any other places to put that many people. None of the other
planets would ever be habitable and the various moons are so small and cold
they could not hold more than a hand full of the 20+ billion left on earth. 

  The only way to off load earth would be to build something on the order of
Ringworld, a giant ring many times the surface area of earth spun to create
artificial gravity on the inner surface. I've got to believe that something
like that is more than a couple centuries away.

  Space research is fine and expanding into the cosmos has all sorts of
benefits, but saving the population of earth from running out of room is not
likely to happen before we run out of space. The only way to keep that type of
catastrophe from happening is to convince people that ZPG (Zero Population
Growth) is the way to go. 

  Can we build places for people to live in space? Of course. Can we build them
faster than the population grows at it's normal rate? Almost certainly not. 

  George

    Re -.1 (George)
    
    In case you missed it, I did mention in  Re.61 that stabilizing the birth
    rate is the only way to go to solve the world's overpopulation problems.
    
    And your argument about 2 people walking into the sea etc is nice but
    it doesn't hold up. 2 every haf second gives 345.6 thousand a day, are
    you sure that a nation of a billion people grows faster then that every
    day... (-;
    
    Anyway I can assure you that space immigration could be a lot faster then 
    even that. For example assuming airline like operations, a reasonable 
    assumption for 100 to 200 years from now, you will agree. If so, then 
    1000 ground to orbit flights of 500 passengers each, suffice to carry a 
    half million passengers everyday into space. Thus no teleport beam needed...
    
    As for a place for them to live. Our Moon, Mars, other moons are all
    candidates. But by far the most places would not be found but built as 
    free orbiting space habitats in the asteroid belt, using asteroid 
    materials. O'Neil space colonies and so on ... Thus no Ringworld needed...
    
    Gil

    The space program may not solve the overpopulation of the Earth. But
    if we are able to put a enough people in a self-supporting colony
    before Earth runs out of resources, we will have ensured the survival
    of the spiecies (sp?).
    
    The space program may help solve the problem of running out of
    resources, or of limited energy. Overpopulation is only a concern, if
    that population is using up non-renewable resources, as we are
    currently doing. If those recources are to be supplied from elsewhere,
    than until every quare foot of the Earth is occupied by men.
    
    This, of course, is no argument to go on multiplying no end! It would
    certainly not hurt the Earth if mankind did got to Zero-growth.
    
    So, in a sense, I think that the space program can help in solving the
    overpopulation of the Earth. If it can do so in time ...
    
    Wildrik
    

  I agree with the "survival of the species" idea. Yes, if we were to build
self supporting colonies in space to support hundreds of thousands of people
and spread them around the solar system that would be safer for humans as a
group. 

  However I still feel that moving people off the surface faster than the birth
rate is not likely over the next couple hundred years without some major
breakthrough not only in technology but in the science that supports that
technology. Same for moving away from the solar system. 

  The surface area on the moon and Mars is not enough to even double the room
for population so the majority of people would have to go onto new man made
structures. Now if we assume that people are going to want to live with a
similar density as we have today on earth, that means that to quadruple the
amount of space we would need a surface area 4 times that of earth. 

  Even if you say that these people can live without oceans, that still means
building an area the size of earth's surface (remember the old saying, "3/4ths
of the earth is covered by ocean, the other 1/4th is covered by Willie Mays"). 

  Also, if people are willing to live in enclosed areas with artificial
production of oxygen as apposed to having open skies and large oceans of
plankton to supply oxygen, then the ocean floor would probably be a much easier
place to go since the surface area is greater than any to be found in our solar
system and the cost of getting there would be cheap (just run a trolley through
a tunnel). 

  Obviously this is all subjective. Who knows, maybe tomorrow someone will
discover the "theory of replication and photo transportation" and we will be
able to design and copy planets as easily as we design and copy software. But
baring such a major advance in physics I doubt that we will be able to build
space habitats fast enough to beat the birth rate any time over the next
couple of centuries.

  George

    The "living area" you have to create in space colonies is nothing like
    even the  1/4  of Earth not covered by water, but rather like the area 
    taken by the cities built on that 1/4th.
    
    In industrialized countries up to 95% of the population is urban, thus
    a big chunk of the  world's population  already  lives  in  artificial 
    enviroments.   And for urban people living in a space colony would not 
    make that much of a difference in terms of "living area".
    
    Gil

  I think that your assumption that billions of people could adapt easily to
urban life is a bit optimistic. And keep in mind, this would be nothing like a
city on earth. Remember, today's cities are only partly "down town business and
luxury living" and even those sections are cheap and low tech compared to what
every square inch of urban area would have to be in space.

  Most of today's cities are made up of middle class villages and small
businesses where getting a new car or a garbage disposal is a big advance in
technology and large parts of the cities are slums where high technology means
heat in the winter and a lock on the door that doesn't double as a place to
sit. 

  Well over 90% of today's cities rely very heavily on the fact that they exist
in the atmosphere and a good portion of today's urban housing units are
stretched to the max just trying to protect people from something as harmless
(by space standards) as a New England winter. Trying to turn something the size
of Boston into BioSphere III would be impossible. 

  And technology would be the least of the problems. The expense would be
unimaginable and the social pressures of trying to get everyone in town as
enthused as the 7-9 people in Biosphere II would be insurmountable. For
example, how do you keep the guys with the Uzies and AK-47's from punching
holes in the air containment wall when they are out riding around shooting up
the neighborhood? 

  And that's just the people who live in cities. Keep in mind that most people
who live in suburbia have no interest in moving into town. Most who work in
town would rather face the horrible commute each day than to attempt urban
living and we haven't even started mentioning people with a rural life style
who would have a hard time adjusting to suburban living. 

  Yes technology may advance and make the technical problems easier to solve
but the financial and social problems of moving a planet size population into a
space based urban setting are enormous. And if we were able to solve those
problems, the ocean floor still looks like a much easier place to settle than
space. The environment problem is no worse to solve and you could commute back
and forth by train. 

  Again for those tuning in late, don't get me wrong. I'm not space bashing and
I'm not saying we should not have aggressive space research until all Earth's
problems are solved. There are lots of reasons for space research but saving
the population from over crowding is not one of them. At least not for the next
couple of centuries. 

  George 

Article: 3804
From: [email protected] (DOUGLAS A. LEVY, UPI Science Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.news.trouble,clari.news.interest,clari.tw.science
Subject: Earth to become barren in 2.5 billion years
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 15:08:02 PST
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will come to
an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will look more like its
dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500 million years, scientists said
Wednesday. 

	But mirrors or shades potentially could shield Earth from
increasing heat from the sun and delay the catastrophic consequences,
they said. A collision with a comet or other major change in the
atmosphere could speed up the end of life. 

	Ken Caldeira and James Kasting of Pennsylvania State
University calculated the doomsday estimates using computer models of
temperature and atmosphere changes and projections of the sun's
increasing heat. 

	As the sun continues to brighten and warm over time, the
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drops -- eventually to a
point too low for plants to survive, the scientists said in the
British journal Nature. 

	Carbon dioxide was a much greater component of air in
prehistoric times, they said, but the sun's increasing brightness has
caused much of that carbon dioxide to escape into space, Caldeira said. 

	``There's really not that much (carbon dioxide) left in the
atmosphere to compensate for more solar luminosity increase,'' he
said, by telephone. 

	``Most of the carbon dioxide would be out of (Earth's) system
within 1 billion years or so, and after 1 1/2 billion years the water
starts getting lost to space'' because Earth's temperature would reach
the boiling point, he said. 

	``After 2 1/2 billion years, all of Earth's water would have
been lost to space. That's a pretty strong barrier to life,'' said
Caldeira, an Earth systems scientist. 

	Tyler Volk, an applied science professor at New York
University, suggested there may be ways to delay or prevent the
eventual demise of life. 

	``Our descendants or descendant species would not have to run
from the devolution...they could fight,'' said Volk. ``Shades in space
or mirrors on the Earth that keep out a small fraction of the elevated
future (heat from the sun) would be an option.'' 

	Other possible solutions include constructing closed
environments such as the Biosphere 2 project in Arizona, in which
cycling of carbon dioxide, water and other essential matter would be
controlled. Establishing controlled Earth-like environments in space
also could be considered, Volk said. 

	``The future ancestral Earth -- dry, burnt and dead -- would
then be fondly recalled in Heinleinian space songs as that mythic
place of 'cool green hills,''' Volk said in a commentary accompanying
Caldeira and Kasting's report.  He was referring to science fiction
Robert Heinlein. 

	The scientists said excessive carbon dioxide released from
fossil fuel burning will not have an impact much beyond 1 million
years, so the ``Greenhouse Effect'' warming is a concern for existing
life but not the future of the planet over millions of years. 

  This seems like the opposite of the space benefit debate. In this case we
are talking about very long periods of time, longer in fact than there has
been life on earth, much less human life.

  I've got to believe that if anyone is still around by then it would be
possible to give the Earth a little shove, speed it up, and allow it to move
to a higher orbit.

  It seems that over that long a period of time, problems like disintegration
of DNA patterns or disease introduced from other planets would be much more
threatening to human life than the Earth running out of gas.

  I think that over that period, the real danger would be a collision between
earth and some other large body orbiting the center of the Galaxy which would
be caused by our galactic orbits crossing or by some larger body passing
through our galaxy. There in lies the potential for one dramatic collision.

  George

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: NASA admits to lying about its Tech Transfer
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:54:59 GMT

   There has been much mention of the NASA and the DOE getting into tech
transfer, CRADAs, civilian DARPA, and other forms of the government acting
as a venture capitalist in the past year.  For those of us doing this as
a real business and resent this government socialism, the following article
only reinforces the belief that commercial space and commercial energy should
be left to the commercial markets.

Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

NASA ADMITS TO EXAGGERATING TECH TRANSFER
    Process is 'Nonintegrated, Undocumented, Too Slow'

    (Washington Technology 1/14/93, page 1)

    Popular mythology says NASA brought America spin-off classics like Tang,
Velcro and Teflon.  But the space agency only popularized them. These sacred
public relations cows were slain by an in-house study that says NASA's
technology transfer reputation has been overblown and falls far short of the
mark.
   "Technology transfer processes are nonintegrated, undocumented and too
slow" says the bare-knuckled assessment that was chartered last May by NASA
adminstrator Daniel Goldin.  The study confirms what many in the commercial
space industry have said privately, but smudges NASA's public reputation
as a role model in technology transfer.
   Oddly enough, Dan Goldin says the highly critical report is a victory.
"I am thrilled", Goldin said during a January 12 interview with Washington
Technology.  "These employees had courage" to buck the system.  "This is
what I have been trying to accomplish at NASA", added Goldin, who was
delighted with the report's tone of honest self-appraisal.
    While NASA has historically had some very successful transfers into the
medical and aeronautics fields, the team concluded "there have not been very
many technology transfer successes compared to the potential ... and past
successes have been largely anecdotal".  A key problem is when NASA employees
think of tech transfer, they tend to consider only the "primary" transfer
of mission-related technologies to mission-oriented customers.
    Meanwhile "secondary" transfers - like special aerospace materials good
for knee replacements - go unconsidered.  "Many developers of NASA technology
have had little or no direct interest in non-aerospace applications", the
report says.
   The study also says that the agency has been too slow to get transferable
knowledge out to industry.  Technical papers can take nine months to get
published, while listings in the NASA journal Tech Briefs can take as much
as 18 months to get to press.
   Further, the authors found NASA tech transfer centers understaffed and
badly coordinated.  Most troubling, they discovered that around the agency
employees, managers and contractors "do not feel technology transfer is
part of their job".  The study slammed NASA management for fostering this
problem by failing to reward tech transfer when it does take place.
   "We want tech transfer to be part of each individual's job", team deputy
Chairman Kathy Abbott said.  She was quick to point out that NASA personnel
are eager to improve and "are not generally waiting for Dan Goldin to say
'do it'".

-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Article: 64036
From: [email protected] (Jeff Bytof - SIO)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Musings of a Space Philosopher
Date: 2 Jun 1993 03:25:40 GMT
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @ UCSD
 
(from "Pace" magazine, August 1969, pp. 22-23):
 
 
       MAN'S SURVIVAL RESTS ON GOING INTO SPACE NOW
       --------------------------------------------
 
                    by Earl Hubbard
 
       The tradition of all life is the decision to
       transcend - to overcome every obstacle to life,
       to explore every new frontier.  If we continue
       in the tradition of our race, we will go into
       space.  If we reject that tradition and choose
       not to go, we face a predictable future of
       impotence phasing into devolution.
 
 
                    PRESERVING LIFE
                    ---------------
 
If we do not go into space:
---------------------------
 
   Everything we have done on earth to prolong life is now militating
against us.  If we can live for indefinite periods by replacing organs, if all 
the children born can live (which is our hope), if we can in fact feed and 
house more people, there is going to be increasingly less room to
move about, less freedom, less opportunity.
 
   The earth is a closed system - a predictable system.
 
   With more and more people, the effort to sustain life will gradually
absorb so much of the earth's resources that the effort to build the means
of moving into the universe will have to be turned in the direction of
sustaining life.
 
   If people who life long lives do not turn their attention out toward
a new place to go, and if everybody born lives, and if we spend all our
time trying to behave and to get along, we will create an explosive situation.
The spirit of man will be broken because he will feel that everything
he has done in the past is a humiliation.  The idea of sustaining life
will turn out to be something diabolical rather than good; the idea
of having children will be called unnatural because it creates more
problems.  We could engender an attitude that there is no future here.
 
   But now, at this moment, it is within our grasp to commit the most heroic
act in all history: to carry man's destiny to the stars.
 
If we do go:
------------
 
   In the universe all acts to preserve life make sense.  As man
emerges into outer space, a prolonged life span becomes essential.
To cross the vastness of the universe man must be able to live indefinitely.  
He will conceive of Earth as a beginning - a birthplace and incubator.  
The reverse will be true if man stays on Earth; a brief life span will
become imperative.
 
 
                     FRUSTRATION AND FRONTIERS
                     -------------------------
 
If we do not go:
----------------
 
   Man cannot survive without frontiers.  Historically, absence of a 
frontier has preceded the decline of nations, religions and social
systems.  Fidelity and frontiers go together.  So the answer to
the question "Can mankind survive on this earth alone?" is "Yes,
the body can, but no, the spirit of man cannot."
 
   It is not the body of man that is in rebellion; it is the spirit
of man.  The urge to transcend without a frontier spells frustration;
and affluence fans frustration's flames, as students have demonstrated.
Man without a frontier is a force without a future, energy without 
an outlet.
 
   The universe is now man's frontier.  Curing poverty is not a frontier
because we have the means to end poverty.  What we lack is the will.
There is no challenge on earth for which, if we have the will, we
do not possess the means of solution.  All earthly problems are
hygienic problems and solving them does not lessen frustration
but increases it.
 
If we do go
-----------
 
   The force of frustration, placed on the former frontiers of America,
forged the future of the United States.  We are a ghetto nation,
built by the frustration of the Old World.  This energy, placed on
the present frontiers of the evolution of mankind, could forge
the future of a race capable of survival in the universe.
 
   The force of frustration could power the earthly means of man's
transcendence.
 
   The ghettos of despair - rich and poor - now offer the world the
greatest resource of energy it has ever possessed: people ready to 
build the future.  They are reservoirs of the energy of transcendence.
This energy released can save mankind.
 
   Today, all the world is becoming a ghetto; not because there is not
enough room for the body or potentially enough food for the body, but
because human awareness is expanding and traveling with the speed of light
through the communication network to the minds of all men.  All men
are becoming aware that they are one and, as one, they are afflicted
with the anxieties and pains and problems of one body.  The urge 
to transcend is now bottled up in this body with no place to move.
It seeks a natural form of egress to move on, to evolve on, in
response to what appears to be a Creative Intention.
 
 
                       WELFARE PROGRAMS
                       ----------------
 
If we do not go
---------------
 
   The primary effect of serving the hygienic needs of man is to 
increase the urge to transcend.  With an increase of health there is
an increase in the desire to transcend.  To the extent that welfare
programs succeed in solving hygenienic problems, they are activating  
man to seek some transcendent goal.  Hungry people dream of food.  
The well-fed dream of the future - a dream which without fulfillment
could become a nightmare.  We must offer real hope, real meaning,
a challenge commensurate to human pride - the challenge of the universe.
 
If we do go
-----------
 
   NASA represents the hope of the greatest welfare program ever 
conceived by man, for NASA represents the hope of mankind's evolution 
into the universe.  
 
   Job training should be related to projects concerned with the evolution 
of man, to the growth of transcendent industries - those concerned with
building a better future.  Examples:  the aerospace industry that builds
for a specific challenge; pharmaceutical companies concerned with
transcending pain, death and disease; computer utilities concerned with
decision-making problems of man; electronic companies concerned with
transcending man's slow reactions.
 
   Such industries are evolutionary in that they do not seek to repeat -
but to move on.  The repetitive factor is relegated to the machine.
The transcendent industries require men of aspiration capable of constant
change.  The stigma of pity goes.  All men are needed. 
 
 
                     MENTAL DEVELOPMENT
                     ------------------
 
If we do not go
---------------
 
   We do not know what the brain can do at full capacity.  No challenge,
so far, it has been estimated, has tapped more than 15 percent of man's
mental capacities.  With that 15 percent we have evolved the means of
solution to most of our pressing problems.  Only the will is lacking.
The carrying out of all the things we can and must do, the care of 
people, the making right of wrong, demands effort to meet our moral
commitment to the evolution of man.  But if we stay on the earth we
may use less rather than more of our mental capacities to survive for
the brain insistently duplicates the requisite mundane tasks this
life-support system represents and requires.  We see warning signs
already as some people in the developed world deliberately dull their
minds and deny their reasoning power with drugs.
 
If we do go
-----------
 
   The curious fact is that the capacity to leave the earth is the most 
distinctive act of man; it sets him apart from all other life on this 
earth.  Only within this new environment of the universe will we begin to    
see what man is really capable of.
 
   Man's brain in an earth environment with gravity, pollution, noise
and conflict is not operating in the most advantageous environment.
In the immaculate space above us, this mind will have only challenge,
and practically no pollution of noise, odor, conflict.
 
   The brain has recently revealed a capacity to externalize low-level
body-serving functions through computers and cybernetics.  It is 
as though the mind were divesting itself of earthly chores, ridding 
itself of mundane work for some greater tasks.
 
                        
                          MORALITY
                          --------
 
If we do not go
---------------
 
   The basis of morality is survival.  Morality means a concern for 
the future of mankind.  Without faith in that future, there will be
no morality.  Modes of conduct and moral behavior are the tail of 
the comet, not the comet.  The comet is the aspiration to transcend.
Fidelity to that aspiration is the only assurance of fidelity of
conduct.
 
   With transcendent aspiration comes a transformation.  No amount
of calisthenics or cosmetics can make a face beautiful.  The light 
of aspiration causes the illumination called beauty, vitality or
charisma.
 
   If nobody on this earth is going anywhere, how long will moral
behavior be relevant?  With no future for the race beyond this earth
we might get an upside-down morality - one that sanctions homosexual-
lesbian conduct and frowns on sexual relationships between the sexes.
Mysticism would be accepted, rational awareness would not.  Total
impotence would be the goal.  Contemporary indications of this attitude
are already becoming apparent, particularly in the world's largest
cities.
 
If we do go
-----------
 
   A frontier morality is a survival morality.  Without a frontier
there is no apparent need for morality; but on a frontier, the need
is obvious.
 
   Long hair, pot and promiscuity may be debatable in a dormitory,
but on the frontiers of space there is no debate.  The right to do
as you please is not debatable on the frontiers of space.  The right
to opt out may be debatable in a dormitory, but not on the frontiers
of space.
 
   Hygienic morality is important, but without the frontier it appears
purposeless.  The survival of the race of man in space is the new
basis of morality.  Dope, sadism, masochism, sex obsession are nonsurvival
techniques for such a space race.  All criticism of these deadly 
manifestations will shift from a question of semantics to one of 
survival.  To produce a space race we must produce the best possible
human being.  A space race cannot smoke or drink or be undisciplined.
Most of the moral strictures that were once sound will discover a new
basis - that of space survival.
 
   If we assume survival depends on man's evolution, we have a basis
of judging what is right and what is wrong on all levels of life.  We
have a basis as rudimentary and clear as in the early tribal life of 
man.  We are now, again, at such a simple stage.  We are attempting
to fend for ourselves in a universe which appears alien and in which
we must demand of ourselves our best in order to survive at all.
 
 
                        CYBERNATION
                        -----------
 
If we do not go
---------------
 
   As our own bodies are maintained in an automated manner, so the
body of mankind is increasingly maintained by automated means.  Man 
is no longer in the business of life-support.  His work is becoming 
ever more cybernated.
 
   To remain on this earth will demand of man an increasing capacity to   
do less.  If man stays on Earth, his role will be a passive one,
his function only to exist.  He will be creating a lesser species.
 
   The pursuit of the "arts of civilization" - the arts, sciences
and beautification of life - is not, historically, an end unto itself,
but an expression of the urge to transcend, the desire to seek and 
serve a Creative Intention.  Trace all art back to its source and you
will find a church.  The source of art is the urge to transcend.  If
we decide not to go into the universe, we will have to pacify the
urge to transcend and cut ourselves off from the source of art.
 
If we do go
-----------
 
   Now that man is being emancipated from the household chores of
Earth, he is free to seek his manhood among the stars.  Cybernation
on earth means the minds of men can focus on the creation of a new
and greater species of man capable of thriving in the universe.
 
   Because he need no longer be concerned exclusively with the search
for food, clothing and housing, because he need no longer be a 
producer and maintainer of material goods, man is capable of looking
beyond himself.  Cybernation is the essential first step in the
evolution of a space race.
 
 
                        SURVIVAL
                        --------
 
   The issue today is whether man will turn inward and decline or
turn outward and evolve, whether he will seek and explore new planets
to live on or remain and die on this one.
 
   Man's only option for survival is to evolve into the universe - 
an option that provides the basis for full employment, for a 
meaningful education and a world union, for uniting all who seek
to know more of the Creative Intention, a basis for meaningful
education; an acceptable basis for morality; the basis for a welfare
program; and the proper employment of frustration as the force to
forge new frontiers and a reaffirmation that families are most
meaningful on a frontier.
 
   The basic option for survival is now and always has been the
acceptance that we live within an intentional universe, and that
man serves some greater purpose than the care and feeding of his
own body.
 
   It is not a question of materialism vs. non-materialism.  It is 
a question of whether we assume the universe to be intentional
or unintentional.  Here lies the constant option for survival.
 
   It is not a question of either solving the problems of earth
or going into space.  It is a question of both.  It is a question
of emancipating the best of man.  The way to achieve the goals 
of the human race is to take the step into space - now.
 
                       -END- 
 

Article: 3334
From: [email protected] (LIDIA WASOWICZ, UPI Science Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.health,clari.tw.space,biz.clarinet.sample
Subject: Space studies can help Earth medicine
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 93 5:14:02 PDT
 
	Experiments in space can provide invaluable tools for understanding
and treating cancers and other illnesses on Earth, an astronaut told a
medical conference Thursday.

	``With gravity at near-zero in orbit, we can learn about the disease
process -- and how to interfere with it -- in ways impossible on Earth,''
said Bonnie Dunbar, a mission specialist on assignment in Life and
Microgravity Sciences and Applications at the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.

	``Microgravity research has tremendous implications for understanding
human physiology and potential applications for pharmaceutical research
and development,'' she told a conference of neurosurgeons, oncologists,
medical specialists and physicists at the University of California, Los
Angeles.

	Specifically,

	--Technology developed to prevent and treat space-flight-induced bone
mass loss is already being used to evaluate bone density, predisposition
to fractures and post-menopausal osteoporosis, a $10 billion a year
health problem in the United States.

	``Since most astronauts are young, healthy and fit, their space-
induced osteoporosis can be isolated from other diseases that afflict
many of the elderly study subjects and be easier to analyze,'' said
Dunbar during the three-day Annual Conference on Stercotactic Surgery
and Radiosurgery.

	--Data on how space flight disturbs sleep and biological rhythms might
lead to new approaches to minimize the effects of the menstrual cycle
and night-shift professions, such as nursing or janitorial services,
found to disturb natural biological rhythms, causing sleep and
performance problems.

	--Cancer cells cultured in space -- which more closely resemble those
multiplying in the human body than cells grown in a lab dish on Earth --
could facilitate the study of cancer and testing of promising therapies.

	``It is very exciting to see the results of cancer tissue growth in
microgravity,'' Dunbar said. ``Cancer cells grown in earth labs are
affected by gravity, which causes changes in the surface chemistry,
shape and morphology and, thereby, the way they interact with drugs.''

	--Studies on how space flight affects blood pressure controls can help
scientists understand the complex operation of the heart and circulatory
system.

	--Space-induced disorientation due to changes in the vestibular, or
balance, mechanisms of the brain and inner ear, could shed light on
vestibular dysfunction that afflicts many aging individuals.

	Since true-to-life cells can be grown in space easier and in greater
quantities than on Earth, such studies also are of great interest to
researchers working with reproducing healthy tissue, such as skin and
cartilage, to replace damaged cells.

	Space research may hold promise even for brain tumors, which are
nearly always fatal, said Dunbar, who has flown on three space shuttle
missions.

	``Anytime you can replicate a body function in a laboratory -- such as
growing cells in a way they grow in the body -- you take a significant
step towards a solution of the problem, she said.''

Article: 14932
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Robert Heinlein's speech
Date: Sun,  5 Sep 93 02:39:51 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Services
 
In Article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Brian Stanley) writes:

>[email protected] writes:
> 
>>Does anybody have the text to Robert Heinlein's speech to the ?Senate?
>>?Congress? about how spinoff / space exploration is not only beneificial, but
>
>I don't have the actual text, however in _Expanded Universe_, Mr. Heinlein
>supplies an abridged version.  ("Spinoff", pp. 500-513 in the 1982 Ace
>paperback edition).  Or you might check a nearby government documents
>repository...
>
>------------------------------
>Brian Stanley  --  [email protected]
>Neither the UND Department of Space Studies nor the US Air Force knows,
>nor do they likely care, what I have said here.
>-- 
>------------- Brian Stanley -------------- [email protected] ----------
>"That red stuff, that's BLOOD that is.  Meant to be on the inside, it is.  BAD
>sign if it's not on the inside, that's what I says." Master Redlaw 
>(Sandman #51)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Yes, but this speech *was* published in a magazine.  Heinlein's
address was to a Joint Session of Congress on July 19, 1979 on the
topic: "Applications of Space Technology for the Elderly and the
Handicapped." Also testifying at that Session was Trudy E. Bell, then
of NASA.  This is from Heinlein's "own mouth" ("Spinoff," pp. 500-513
of EXPANDED UNIVERSE) 
 
If anyone knows where a complete copy of this speech--or Session--can be
had, please post.  Here's one for your Trivia Phenom, Henry!
 
Thanks.
--
Sarah R. Yoffa
 
Disclaimer:  I'm an ignorant idiot, but since I know it, I'm no fool.
If you believe anything I say can be validated, you are not only
foolish but ... B-)
======================================================================
       ___          || Sarah R. Yoffa, Dept. of Mech. Engineering
      / o \___      || University of Massachusetts/Amherst, Mass.
     |     _/-}     || Internet: [email protected]
_____/____|_______  ||
\ Phoenix Rising /  || "The past only exists in the minds of those
 \ Enterprises  /   ||  who choose to recall it."   -- Kyree in
  \  (c) 1993  /    || "And the Children Shall Lead"
   \          /     ||
    \--------/      || "A generation which ignores history has no
                    ||  past--and no future!" -- Lazarus Long in
                    || "Time Enough for Love" by Robert Heinlein
======================================================================
 
Article: 14938
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: RE: Robert Heinlein's speech
Date: 6 Sep 1993 16:00:08 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Laguna Hills, CA
 
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] wrote: 

>Greetings and Salutations: 
> 
>Does anybody have the text to Robert Heinlein's speech to the ?Senate? 
>?Congress? about how spinoff / space exploration is not only beneificial, but 
>how he personally benefited by the medical advances made? 
 
His own condensed version is published in a collection of his writing
entitled "Expanded Universe." Should be available at any general bookstore. 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
| Rich Ahrens                      |       [email protected] | 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

Article: 17770
From: [email protected] (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Something you'll all enjoy....
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 04:08:32 GMT
Organization: Future site of Vaporware Corporation (maybe).  --Teletoons (NW)
 
This may be more appropriate for another sci.space.* group, but this
is the only one I have access to. 
 
Anyways, the following is from the most recent book I'm reading, and
it is so nicely said, I just can't resist sharing it with everyone
here.  :-) This is from the book entitled ``Reach'', by Edward Gibson
(astronaut on Skylab 3 in 1973-1974). 
 
I'm having my cat type this for me, so any typos are her fault.  :-)
(The truth is, I was in an accident over the weekend, and both wrists
are very, very sore...so my typing kinda stinks right now.) 
 
---------------------------  CUT HERE  ---------------------------
 
Urge pushed up.  Gravity pulled down.
 
Urge summoned all its strength, roared and rose up.  It attacked and
gained ground, but it then faltered and faded back behind old lines.
Urge stormed again, and it faded again.  It stormed and faded, stormed
and faded, stormed and faded . . .
 
Over millions of years, and millions of times a year, Ocean yielded to
Urge.  Time after time Urge stormed the shore.  It thrust upward, then
spread outward and assaulted Land.  And each time Gravity reached out,
grabbed every molecule and dragged each and every one back.  Retreat
followed every advance; withdrawel, every thrust.
 
But eon after eon, Ocean's Urge never gave up.
 
Perhaps Urge was just a slow learner.  Perhaps it didn't yet understand
that Gravity never released its grip.  Or perhaps Urge just couldn't
control itself.  For whatever reason, Urge continued its incessant battle
against confinement, the only life Urge had ever known.
 
Others on Earth, whose ancestors once stuggled up and out of Ocean, still
felt Urge and still fought Gravity.  And they also thrust.
 
A select few escaped.
 
---------------------------  CUT HERE  ---------------------------
 
Anyways, I really liked it....  I'm only about half-way through the book
(not much time to read lately), but it's definitely a very good read.
 
Apologies if anyone considers this off-topic---again, I was impressed
enough with this description of space travel that I just had to share it.
 
Later,
   --jim
 
--
73 DE N5IAL (/4)                         < Running Linux 0.99 PL10 >
      [email protected]                 ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W
  ||  [email protected]          Packet:  N5IAL@W4ZBB (Ft. Walton Beach, FL)
E-mail me for information about KAMterm (host mode for Kantronics TNCs).
 

Article: 60822
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: AXAF or Cassini: you make the choice
Date: 10 Jun 1994 02:45:30 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Richard A. Schumacher) writes: 

>Kill AXAF or Cassini to save a billion bucks? That's easy:
>kill the damned useless space station, build both AXAF
>and Cassini, then apply the remaining $19 or so billion
>saved to reducing the national debt. Any more questions,
>don't be afraid to ask.
 
What programs will be cut or saved depends entirely on how such
actions will influence the prospects of incumbent members of Congress
being reelected.  If Cassini isn't worth much in the way of votes, but
AXAF is, then Cassini will probably be cut.  The same applies to the
space station. Congress is only minimally concerned with scientific
advancement, and completely concerned with being (re)elected. 
 
I have to say that, even though sci.astro probably isn't the place for
this discussion, "the damned useless space station" will probably
produce more tangible benefits than both AXAF and Cassini combined. 
Anyone who believes different should familiarize themselves with the
NASA Spinoff documents, which demonstrate the benefits of the space
program in general and manned programs specifically.  *Manned*
exploration gives far more versatility and capabilities than any
unmanned exploration of the solar system.  The manned program has more
than paid for itself (WRT taxpayers) over the years.  Such
trivialities as Teflon are a direct result of the Apollo program.  As
a result of the manned portions of that program, our cars are *much*
safer than they used to be, saving not only lives but millions of
dollars each year.  Many composite materials used in cars (scratch
resistant, dent resistant, etc) are spinoffs from NASA's programs. 
Houses are more fire-safe, paint lasts longer, and firemen are better
able to put out fires, all because of "useless" manned programs. 
Specifically you should check out the history of Spacelab I&II and the
Apollo program, which wouldn't have done nearly as much in an unmanned
version.  You can get information on planned benefits from NASA or any
major contractor (e.g. Boeing)  Also, Jerry Pournelle writes an
excellent discussion on this in _A Step Farther Out_, which will soon
be back in print.  And of course, we probably won't lose manned
expeditions to faulty probe designs. (not that I'm saying we shouldn't
have unmanned programs!) 
 
To say that the Space Station will be useless belighs an astounding
ignorance on the subject.  Materials and Medicinal research alone will
produce benefits which will pay for the added cost of having humans in
space.  In fact, it is extremely likely (given the past history of
space exploration/research) that having humans on the space station
will actually *significantly* increase the productivity of any
experiments.  The space station has been scaled back from original
designs, but not rendered useless! 
 
A few forseeable benefits (excluding the planned materials and
medicinal research): 

1) Once in orbit, you're "half way to anywhere" in terms of energy
(fuel) expenditure.  It becomes possible to assemble unmanned probes
in space, saving on fuel and materials. (no added structures to
withstand several g's of acceleration).  Future moon, Mars, or ANY
exploration will be vastly easier (and cheaper) to undertake. 

2) Satellite mainenance is easier and cheaper. (Not automatic, unfortunately.)

3) Better insulations for homes, cars, refrigerators... (read: more
effecient, therefor less costly) 

4) More efficient water management in homes.

5) Better waste reclimation (already a spinoff of Apollo and the Shuttle,
but likely to be vastely improved with experience in a manned space
station).  This means cheaper disposal and better recyclables.

6) More efficient power consumption in motors (refrigerators,
washers/dryers, furnaces, airconditioners, etc.), and light bulbs.

7) More efficient (cheaper) climate control for homes, offices, cars, etc.
 
Remember, the computers we have today are almost a direct result of
NASA's need for small, lightweight computers in their manned capsules.
Look at the difference computers have made in the world; you shut off
every computer in the world, and the world economy comes to a
screaching halt. Who knows what other UNFORSEEABLE benefits an
undertaking as ambitious and monumental as a manned space station will
produce?  The ones I have mentioned are just the everyday ones.  What
big changes will be wraught in our world by the Space Station? 
 
-Tom Hopper
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Michigan State University
 
My opinions are expressly my own, and not necessarily those of anyone else.

Article: 60848
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: AXAF or Cassini: you make the choice
Date: 10 Jun 94 14:21:13 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (William
Arnett) writes: 

> In article <[email protected]>,
 
>>  _If_ this is true, I would guess that AXAF gets the ax,
>>because the European Space Agency has put a lot of time and money
>>into Cassini.  Is there a similar international contribution to AXAF?
>>
>>  And, given the choice, which would YOU choose to cut?
 
I have to say I'd much prefer AXAF, but thats because I'm an
extragalactic astronomer who'll benefit nought from Cassini/Huygens. 
 
But I'm aslo a European, and see all the problems that US funding and
congressional micromanagement cause. The US is no longer regarded as a
relaible partner for space projects (and perhaps more now that the SSC
has died) and will be increasingly isolated if it doesn't mend its
ways. After the International Solar Polar Mission got cut in half when
the US decided not to build its spacecraft, I'm pleased to say that
most European projects now do not rely on US involvement. The Huygens
Titan probe is the last probe that *requires* US involvement, which
now seems to  be seen as a useful addition, but no requirement. A
couple of examples: 
 
ISO (infraRed Space Observatory)- No US involvement, but provision of
a ground station has increased the amount of observing time available.
Telescope, instruments, launch, control and operations are *all* Euopean. 
 
Integral- Next generation gamma ray observatory - planned with US
contribution, which was then cut by congress or NASA. Now continuing
as a solely Euopean project. 
 
> If I had to choose right now, I would fund Cassini and postpone AXAF.  But I
> would want to know more:
 
I'd like to know why - other than the involvement of ESA...
 
> 	-how much has ESA spend on Cassini?  Can they come up with some more?
 
The Huygens probe (which descends to Titan) is essentially a separate
craft which is fully funded by ESA. Cost about $400 million I think
(ESA medium mission?). This is a fixed budget, and no more will be
forthcoming without a ministerial meeting and I can't see that happening. 
If the US can't keep its budgets sorted, I see no reason why we should 
bail you out, frankly. 
 
> 	-how much of a delay to the Space Station or reduction of shuttle
> 	 operations would be required to save enough money to have them both?
 
Not long, since SSF is so expencive.
 
> The real choice is which Senators and Congressmen to cut :-)
 
The real choice is to get multiyear funding arrangements sorted. The
one NASA program under budget and ahead of schedule that I've heard of
was the Challenger replacement, funded on just such a basis... 
-- 
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax			|  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro		|           Saint Germain...
================================================================================

  I saw an article in the Globe earlier this week claiming that one of the
congressional committees had decided to cut NASA's budget and that they had
specifically mentioned that either Cassini (unmanned orbit of Saturn) or AXAF
(the X-Ray telescope) would have to go. 

  The note in -.1 sort of looks like the middle of a discussion of that
announcement. Most likely the anti-manned faction is arguing that the manned
programs should be killed allowing all the unmanned programs to be kept. The
reply adds the obvious (will I guess not obvious to everyone) political
realities. 

  As to the original issue put forward by Congress, my heart says keep Cassini
but my head says keep the telescope. Nice new pictures of Saturn would be nice
but the telescope could be repaired if it broke and would study the entire
known universe not just one planet. 

  George 

    Keep everything
    
    The USA should and can fund all the space programs ... Cassini, AXAF,
    and the station whatever its lastest re-incarnation is called. If any
    money needs to be saved, save it from the over-blown military budget. 
    
    As pointed to before, many of the space problems and "costs" derive
    directly from the yearly "yes/no/maybe/chop" way congress funds things.
    
    The best thing congress could do is to fund space and other governament
    programs/projects for their lifetimes or not at all. (With appropriate
    controls of course, so that the programs/project total budgets would not 
    be allowed to become run-aways).
    
    Once a program/project got its go ahead, it should require a 2/3ths
    vote to make any modifications to its goals or its budget.
    
    One of the worse examples of what congress can inflit on a program is
    the station of-course. After God knows how many billions spent and
    upteen re-organizations re-designs re-budgets nothing has yet gotten
    off the ground.
    
    Gil

I like your idea of requiring 2/3 vote to change space programs once they are
started.  However, this has to be qualified somehow.  For example, I think that
you and I mean individual "missions" like the station, Cassini, Galileo, etc.  I
would not want something very long term locked in.  For example, if we come up
with a better launcher, does it take 2/3 to stop flying shuttles?  I hope not.

The other thing about this idea is that it would probably only fly if it also
took a 2/3 vote to INCREASE a program's budget.  And this is the big thing that
happened with the station.  It was grossly under-estimated, and then as the
costs grew, Congress required redesigns to scale the cost back.  I suspect that
NASA would be willing to trade more realistic estimates for nearly guaranteed
continuing funding.

Burns

  The problem with the 2/3rds vote is that spending resolutions only cover a
one year period. Each year NASA, like every other government agency, starts out
with nothing and Congress votes to give them something. If that took a 2/3rds
vote, they'd quickly go out of business. 

  One of the contractors, McDonald Douglas I believe, has started a radio
campaign at least in the Boston area aimed at stirring up interest for NASA. I
heard their ad this morning. It refers to "the dream" and various speeches by
JFK. 

  George

    re -.1 George
    
    The yearly funding cycle is exactly the thing I am agaisnt. What I
    sugested in re.77, is that after congress gives a specific program
    its go ahead by a simple majority vote. The program would then be
    funded for its lifetime, however long it took,  be it 5, 10, 20 or
    more years.
    
    Any post go-ahead changes to the program's goals or funding would
    then require a 2/3 congressional vote. Be it a budget reduction or
    an increase... or anything.
    
    Naturaly any program can't always be expected to be on-time and on
    budget. Specialy high risk technologicaly leading edge programs. So
    When I mentioned appropriate controls, I ment that the program 
    should be able to go a bit over-time and over-budget before congress
    has to aprove any budget increases. Something like:
    
    	- Every 5% time or budget increase has to be justified to
    	  congress. 
    
    	- For normal risk programs congresse's 2/3 aproval of increases
    	  would be required for any increase over 10%.
    
    	- For high risk programs congresse's 2/3 aproval of increases
    	  would be required for any increase over 20%.
    
    	*** The European Space Agency uses something like this.
    
    
    This mechanism has two advantages:
    
    	1. More realistic program/project proposals to congress.
    
    	   Otherwise said programs/projects would risk having to
    	   get a life or dead end-of-program 2/3 congressional
    	   aproval.
    
    	2. Stable funding for said programs/projects
    
    	   With stable funding private concerns involved run
    	   a lesser risk. And long term commitements are easier.
    	   Resulting in smaller overall costs.
    
    	   It also insures that the program will be carried to its
    	   completion.
    Gil

re .80

As I said, I like this idea.  However, there may well be constitutional issues
involved.  The other problem is that I think the only way this could be done is
for Congress itself to agree to do it (as they did with the unusual procedure
for base closings).  And the problem with Congress just agreeing to limit itself
in some way is that they can also agree to un-limit themselves as well.

Sigh...

Burns

  A paradox comes up which makes it unlikely that a 2/3rds type plan would
work. 

  If Congress did pass a law along the lines of the 2/3rds rule it would no
doubt get challenged in court and the Supreme Court would have to go one of
two ways, strike it down or let it stand.

  1) if the Court decided that it was unconstitutional, they would strike
     it down and that would be the end it.

  2) If the court decided that it was within the power of Congress and the
     President to create such a law, then if Congress and the President later
     ignored their own law by creating or not creating a spending resolution,
     the court would still be reluctant to interfere and would probably leave
     the issue alone.

  It is not likely that they would show the restraint to leave it standing
in the 1st place then become judicial activists on the same issue and enforce
it at a later time.

  Another major problem is that there is no precedent by which the Supreme
Court can force Congress to spend money. If this Law was in effect and Congress
refused to spend the money, who would tell them to spend it? The Constitution
is clear that all spending resolutions start in the House of Representatives
and it has been the practice for over 200 years that each year they start with
a clean slate. 

  The only way this type of system could be enacted would be if there was a
Constitutional Amendment putting it into effect. That's not likely to happen
right now especially if it's clear that the chief motivation of the amendment
was to continue spending for large space programs and other science projects. 

  George

    re -.1 George
    
    I agree for such a funding mechanism to be implemented would require
    a Constitutional Amendment.
    
    However it would lead to less work for congress, to more efficient and 
    LESS COSTLY (OVERALL) programs/projects. And it would inject a bit of 
    long term thinking into the usual short term congressional view point.
    
    Congress still has control of overall spending, its just that like
    a man buying a house, it would have to agree to pay for the whole
    house up front. It would be less able to use its priviledged position
    to back out of previous commitments.
    
    Congress it not one person, not even the same group of persons over
    time. And new members should, by intention, find it difficult to change
    previous member commitements. Thus by votting for such a law current
    congress members would help insure that whatever they start right now
    is not lightly and easily changed or canceled by future members.
    
    Gil

RE          <<< Note 563.83 by MAYDAY::ANDRADE "The sentinel (.)(.)" >>>

>    I agree for such a funding mechanism to be implemented would require
>    a Constitutional Amendment.
    
  Good luck getting something like that passed. Remember, you would need
2/3rds of both houses of Congress just to get it proposed then you would
need 3/4ths of the states to get it ratified. In reality, once the opposition
made it clear that this was to "trap U.S. citizens into continuing costly
space programs", you'd be lucky to get 1/3rd in either house, never mind 2
in both.

>    Congress still has control of overall spending, its just that like
>    a man buying a house, it would have to agree to pay for the whole
>    house up front. It would be less able to use its privileged position
>    to back out of previous commitments.

  Well, it's not quite like a man buying a house. The difference is that if a
man signs an agreement to buy a house and tries to breach his contract, the
guy selling the house can take him to court. As individuals within the
jurisdiction of the United States, both parties are subject to State and U.S.
Laws covering contract issues and those laws can be enforced by the Court. 

  By contrast, Congress has more power than the court when it comes to spending
money and that includes the Supreme Court. If Congress refuses to go on
spending, you can't take them to court for breach of contract because they have
Sovereign Immunity. There are some laws to cover that case but they are not the
usual breach of contract laws and most Federal contracts are written to take
the spending cycle into consideration. 

  George

From:	US4RMC::"[email protected]" "HILL, DIANNE" 26-JUL-1994 17:32:47.26
To:	press-release <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	NASA PRESS RELEASE 94-123

OFFICIAL NASA HEADQUARTERS PRESS RELEASE

Michael Braukus
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
                          July 26, 1994
(Phone:  202/358-1979)

Diane Farrar
Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.
(Phone:  415/604-9000)

RELEASE:  94-123

NASA USES SATELLITE DATA TO DETECT LYME DISEASE RISK

     Scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.,
and the New York Medical College (NYMC) in Valhalla, N.Y., are using
satellite remote sensing and computer technology to predict the risk
of Lyme disease transmission. 

     "We have successfully used satellite imagery to identify specific
types of suburban areas in Westchester County, New York, where the
risk of exposure to  Lyme disease is high," said Sheri Dister, a
research scientist.  Dister, with  Byron Wood and Louisa Beck, all
employees of Johnson Controls World Service, Inc., collaborate on the
project at Ames. 

     The NASA team, with Dr. Durland Fish of NYMC and Westchester
County Health Department investigators, combined Landsat imagery and
Geographic Information System (GIS) technology, which uses layers of
maps to display spatial  relationships to map landcover for all of
Westchester County to identify  types and placement of landscape
elements associated with Lyme disease risk. 

     They found that the higher the proportion of vegetated
residential area next to woods within a municipality, the higher the
transmission risk.  It has been reported that 69 percent of the deer
tick bites in Westchester County  are acquired by people near their
homes. 

     Lyme disease is transmitted to humans by infected deer ticks.  It
is now the most commonly reported vector-borne (transmitted by a
variety of insects and ticks) disease in the United States.  When
untreated, it can result in debilitating arthritis, and neurological
and cardiac disorders. 

     "Knowing where the risk of Lyme disease occurs is the first step
in prevention -- whether behavioral, spraying for ticks, or
vaccination," Fish  said. 

     "This new method of getting information has given us a complete
picture of the high risk areas throughout the county, without sending
teams of people  into the field," he said.  Westchester County covers
more than 450 square  miles. 

     The preliminary study used rates of Lyme disease antibodies in
the blood of domestic dogs as a measure of exposure risk.  Dogs
exposed to tick bites  produce specific antibodies to Lyme disease. 
The dogs' infection rate can  indicate the risk of Lyme disease
transmission in these areas. 

     NYMC scientists analyzed the percentage of sampled dogs testing
positive for Lyme disease in each municipality of Westchester County. 
Antibody rates increased, they found, from south to north as the
character of the  countryside changed from urban to rural. 

     The Ames scientists used Landsat data to characterize this
urban-to-rural transition in terms of different types of residential
areas and vegetation important for ticks and their hosts. 

     Overlaying the canine data onto the landscape map showed a
significant correlation between the canine exposure rate and the
proportion of vegetated residential areas located next to woods. 
Residential areas not adjacent to  woods did not show this same
pattern, indicating the importance of the  surrounding landscape in
mapping residential risk of Lyme disease. 

     "We found that remote sensing and GIS technologies can be used to
map  landscape elements for large areas and relate them to Lyme
disease risk.  We  are now looking at residence-level field data in
relation to the satellite  data to see if we can find a similar
pattern at this finer scale," Dister  said. 

     The team is working to develop a predictive model that can be
applied to other regions of the Northeast similar to Westchester County. 

     Earlier this year, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control issued a
report that suggested using innovative tools for surveillance of
emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases in the U.S. 

     "This particular innovative approach shows the significant
contribution NASA can make in the surveillance and prediction of
emerging diseases," said Dr.  Joan Vernikos, director of NASA's Life
and Biomedical Sciences and  Applications Division at NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.  The division,  through its Global
Monitoring and Disease Prediction Program, supports the  use of remote
sensing and GIS technologies in public health applications. 

 - end -

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% From: "HILL, DIANNE" <[email protected]>
% To: press-release <[email protected]>
% Subject: NASA PRESS RELEASE 94-123
% Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 11:32:00 PDT
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Sender: [email protected]

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "HILL, DIANNE" 21-SEP-1994 00:42:25.30
CC:	
Subj:	94-156 NASA TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTS NEW MEDICAL INFORMATION  SUPERHIGHWAY

Michael Braukus
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
September
19, 1994
(Phone: 202/358-1979)

Diane Ainsworth
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
(Phone: 818/354-5011)

RELEASE:  94-156

NASA TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTS NEW MEDICAL INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY

     High-speed information technologies developed by NASA can
support physicians in remote locations on a new medical information
superhighway by providing them instant access to information and
treatment strategies for their patients.

     The new, integrated computing and telecommunications
technologies developed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
Calif., will be demonstrated Sept. 20 before members of Congress and
the Clinton Administration by the National Information Infrastructure
Testbed, a non-profit consortium of corporations, universities and
government agencies committed to translating the vision of a national
information infrastructure into reality.

     "Right now, a revolution in the way we plan and deliver
medical care is knocking on our door, and NASA's going to be in the
front ranks of that revolution," said NASA Administrator Daniel S.
Goldin.  "We'll merge our unique skills with those of the other major
players to create innovative technology and engineering solutions."

     The demonstration will take place at 10 a.m. EDT in the foyer
of the Rayburn House Office Building, Independence Avenue entrance.

     The "telemedicine" demonstration shows how ground and satellite
communications and supercomputing technologies can be applied to
improve the delivery of critical medical care and expertise to
geographically dispersed sites throughout the country.

     The demonstration will simulate an emergency trauma situation
in which a patient on vacation in a remote area of the Southern
California desert isbadly injured in an automobile accident.
Satellite communications will be used to allow a rural hospital to
communicate with trauma specialists at the University of Southern
California (USC) Medical Center in Los Angeles.

     "Using this communications network, the patient's medical
records could be remotely accessed while critical medical images would
be shared by specialists in diagnosing the patient's medical
condition," said Edward Chow, technical manager of the telemedicine
demonstration at JPL.  "Real-time consultation could be carried out by
teleconferencing and the patient could receive an agreed-upon treatment."

     "This demonstration illustrates the many ways in which
technologies developed for the space program can be harnessed to
enrich the lives of people," said JPL Director Dr. Edward C. Stone,
who will participate in a panel discussion of the telemedicine
demonstration.

     The health care consortium will point out the potential
benefits of the networking technology to improve the quality and
delivery of medical services, including:

       Improved analysis tools to prevent expensive and sometimes
unnecessary medical procedures;
       Timely delivery of lab results and expedient treatment;
       Improved collaboration of primary and specialized health
care physicians using new, high-speed data communications techniques;
       Extending quality health care to underserved and unserved
areas of the country.

     Participants in the telemedicine demonstration will include
AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, Hughes Aircraft Corporation, IBM, Johns Hopkins
Medical Center, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, NASA-JPL's
Telecommunications Systems Division, Network Systems Corporation,
Pacific Bell, Polaroid Corporation, Sandia National Laboratories,
SynOptics Communications, WilTel, USC Medical Center and the USC
Advanced Biotechnical Consortium.

     JPL's work in the telemedicine demonstration is sponsored by
NASA's Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications; the
Office of Space Access and Technology; and the Office of Space
Science, Washington, D.C.

 - end -

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% From: "HILL, DIANNE" <[email protected]>
% Subject: 94-156 NASA TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTS NEW MEDICAL INFORMATION  SUPERHIGHWAY
% Date: Tue, 20 Sep 94 08:12:00 PDT
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Sender: [email protected]