sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) (05/04/89)
In article <2562@phred.UUCP> petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) writes: +In article <1989Apr26.232428.3073@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: +>You forgot Mariners 6, 7, and 9, the last of which was particularly important. +>Ancient history, all of them. + +Ancient history? The pictures the Mariners took 25 years ago are just as Awwww..come on Peter. Don't be like that, Henry really means well, he's not *reallly* down on the US/NASA efforts. The .sigs that Henry usually flys are just some thought provoking stuff...intended to make people think...about like, writing letters to Congresspersons to pump up our space efforts...think of Henry as a sort of "Inspiration Rat"..kicking you gently...to get you to *do something* to boost the funding of NASA, etal..that's how I imagine him! {hello Henry! How's the ESA going? :-) } -- -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 * 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+ Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (05/08/89)
In article <4359@ttidca.TTI.COM> sorgatz@ttidcb.tti.com (Erik Sorgatz - Avatar) writes: >+ > Awwww..come on Peter. Don't be like that, Henry really means well, he's >not *reallly* down on the US/NASA efforts. The .sigs that Henry usually flys >are just some thought provoking stuff...intended to make people think...about I've been careful not to "flame" Henry, although it's hard not to sometimes. I prefer to look at our accomplishments. We have many. I would like to see more happening too, but that also takes time and money. We've got a rather unique probe on the way to Venus, one to Neptune and one will be on the way to Jupiter in September. Come December, the Space Shuttle will place the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit opening up the solar system and Universe a few orders of magnitude. Although the telescope is late, we've been able to make improvements to it and fix some problems it's had in the interim. We've got the Canadarm integrated into the Shuttles. How about Canada and the United States integrating in a team effort to send something to Mars? Share the cost? Or is that asking too much. Peter Jarvis.......(ironically born in Canada)..... :-)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/09/89)
In article <2570@phred.UUCP> petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) writes: > ...How >about Canada and the United States integrating in a team effort to send >something to Mars? Share the cost? Or is that asking too much. So long as Congress insists that the US must be able to go it alone on everything just in case, it probably is. Canada's contribution to the space station is being essentially duplicated by NASA, on direct orders from Congress, at your expense. And one guess why the station will have three different laboratory modules? Right the first time: one each from JSA, ESA, and NASA, because the US wouldn't let ESA or JSA build anything vital to the station. Nobody in his right mind is going to expect the US to participate in an "integrated team effort". At least with ESA we don't get this kind of nonsense (much). Go Hermes! :-) :-) -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (05/09/89)
In article <1989May9.013926.13621@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <2570@phred.UUCP> petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) writes: >> ...How >>about Canada and the United States integrating in a team effort to send >>something to Mars? Share the cost? Or is that asking too much. > >So long as Congress insists that the US must be able to go it alone on >everything just in case, it probably is. Canada's contribution to the >space station is being essentially duplicated by NASA, on direct orders >from Congress, at your expense. And one guess why the station will have >three different laboratory modules? Right the first time: one each from >JSA, ESA, and NASA, because the US wouldn't let ESA or JSA build anything >vital to the station. Nobody in his right mind is going to expect the >US to participate in an "integrated team effort". At least with ESA we >don't get this kind of nonsense (much). Despite the fact that Congress is usually a pretty brain-dead institution, in this case I have to agree that this might be a good idea. In international ventures, the potential for governmental screw-ups is cumulative. So, if P(G) is the probability that government G will avoid doing anything really stupid to kill the project, and a project has to depend on governments G1, G2, ..., GN, the chance of the project succeeding is: P(G1) * P(G2) * ... * P(GN) (remember that for all x, P(x) < 1, and in the case of governments P(G) << 1) In other words, about a snowball's chance in hell. :-/ I'm not saying that Congress is any more reliable than any foreign legislature, but as bad as it is to have to rely on Congress, it's exponentially worse to rely on Congress *and* the Canadian legislature *and* the British Parliament *and* ..... _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) (05/09/89)
From article <2570@phred.UUCP>, by petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis): > Come December, the Space Shuttle > will place the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit opening up the solar system > and Universe a few orders of magnitude. Although the telescope is late, I've got news for you - it's now March 1990 at the earliest. Don't list as achievements things that are still quite a way off.... Jonathan McDowell
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/10/89)
In article <1989May9.011932.23900@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >>So long as Congress insists that the US must be able to go it alone on >>everything just in case... > >Despite the fact that Congress is usually a pretty brain-dead institution, >in this case I have to agree that this might be a good idea. Oddly enough, ESA seems to survive without it. International collaboration often makes it harder for a single government to do something stupid, since that would piss off its partners. (Foreign relations often have somewhat higher priority than domestic science.) The US is the only major country, by and large, that feels itself above such considerations, and is perfectly willing to screw up an ongoing project (as opposed to declining to join a new one). >In international ventures, the potential for governmental screw-ups is >cumulative. So, if P(G) is the probability that government G will >avoid doing anything really stupid to kill the project... Unfortunately, in recent history the big problem is P(USA), which is rather small for international projects. That tends to dominate the probability of the whole thing going through. Remember the International Solar Polar Mission, now renamed Ulysses by thoroughly disgusted Europeans. P(UK) has shown disturbing oscillations lately, but by and large this hasn't caused ESA excessive problems. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu