The search for NEOs ratchets up a notch...
baalke@...
12/07/01 02:31 PM
Please respond to neo-owner
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/011206122014.4a54dyc0.html
Japan's 'Spaceguard' Centre To Track Celestial Clutter
TOKYO (AFP)
December 6, 2001
A Japanese space observatory started work Thursday to install a
wide-angled
telescope to track celestial debris with the ultimate aim of preventing a
disastrous impact on Earth.
The telescope's aperture is just one metre (39.4 inches) but it boasts a
field of view at three degrees, one of the largest in the world, according
to Bisei Spaceguard Centre executive director Syuzo Isobe.
"With the telescope, we aim to discover so-called near earth objects
(NEO),
such as asteroids and comets, some of which may threaten to hit the Earth.
We will also detect space debris," Isobe told AFP.
Full story here:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/011206122014.4a54dyc0.html
Is it just me, or has it seemed in the past year or so that Japan has been
putting a lot more efforts into Space technology than even the United
States (Star Wars notwithstanding).
seriously considering moving to SPS as an energy resource, and of course
it makes extensive use of satellite technology.
Has anyone been keeping closer tabs on Japan's Space
infrastructure? Given NASA's current goals, is it possible Japan is a
more fertile field in which to try to develop the technology which would
make the High Frontier possible?
--Justin
> infrastructure? Given NASA's current goals, is it possible Japan is a
> more fertile field in which to try to develop the technology which would
> make the High Frontier possible?
>
years ago. Dr. Patrick Collins left Europe and has been based in Japan working on SPS and Space Tourism.
Charles R.
The idea that "... Japan has been putting a lot more efforts into Space
technology ..." is easily testable. What is their budget and what are they
launching? The latest log I could find is for the year 2000, from
"Jonathan's Space Home Page" at
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~jcm/space/log/log.2000, which I recommend. It
shows Japan as launching 1 of 85 in the year 2000, or about 1.2 % of the
world effort by this simple accounting. There is a lot of other data on
space developments available on this and linked sites. Sincerely, Jay
Huebner
number of launches. This year the Proton heads the league table by number of
launches.
US vehicles: Launched Failures
Lockheed Martin Atlas 8 0
Boeing Delta 7 0
NASA Space Shuttle 5 0
Lockheed Martin Titan 3 0
OSC Pegasus 2 0
OSC Minotaur 2 0
OSC Taurus 1 0
Russian vehicles:
Krunichev Proton 14 0
TsSKB-Progress Soyuz 13 0
Polyot Kosmos 3 1*
Krunichev Rokot 1 0
Other vehicles:
Arianespace Ariane 8 0
China Long March 5 0
Yuzhnoe Zenit 5 1
Arianespace Ariane-5 4 0
Kompleks Start 1 0
Yuzhnoe Tsiklon/Dnepr 2 1
Nissan/ISAS M-V 1 1
Total 85 4
which I recommend. It
> shows Japan as launching 1 of 85 in the year 2000, or about 1.2 % of the
> world effort by this simple accounting. There is a
The number of launches by country has absolutely no relationship to that country's space budget.
For example, by your reckoning. Russia must have an enormous space budget. But the truth is, they have one of the smallest space budgets in the world. Nearly all of the Russian launch are commercial contract launches for foreign customers, most of them non-governmental, i.e. commercial communcations satellites for a variety of countries.
In fact, nearly all the launch vehicles you listed have foreign customers, commercial and/or governmental.
Please would you expand the listing to indicate who the CUSTOMER is for each launch listed. That would be much more interesting.
Non-launcher countries such as Canada, Indonesia, Australia, Korea, pay for many of the launches listed, but by your launch reckoning they each have a zero space budget.
Charles R.
> The idea that "... Japan has been putting a lot more efforts into Space
> technology ..." is easily testable. What is their budget
And everybody else's ?
Charles R.
I acknowledged my method was a "... simple accounting." Still, it makes it
clear that Japan is not a big player. Neither are "Canada, Indonesia,
Australia, Korea." But don't argue with me, look at the other data. I was
just trying to let everyone know where one can get what hard data, so one
does not have to speculate. Jay Huebner
> I acknowledged my method was a "... simple accounting." Still, it makes it
> clear that Japan is not a big player. Neither are
> "Canada, Indonesia,
How do you reach that conclusion ? It is certainly not supported by the data you have referenced.
> Australia, Korea." But don't argue with me, look at the other data. I was
What other data ?
You pointed to Jonathan's space site which lists launches by country of the launch site.
It gives us no insight at all into the budgets of commercial and governmental space organizations.
> just trying to let everyone know where one can get what hard data, so one
> does not have to speculate. Jay Huebner
>
Where is the hard data on expenditures on space by both governmental and non-govenrmental entitites ?
There is no sign of that in your posts, nor the web sites you have referenced.
Actually, such comprehensive statistics do not exist anywhere, I have been searching for years, but never ran across anything.
Even the AIA data posted here is only for US Government contracts.
Charles R.
The web site I gave, lists, as one example, the countries that launched
different devices to space in the year 2000. The parent site,
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~jcm/space gives a lot more, for another example,
(probably) all launches ever made in the history of humans going to space.
Countries which have no launches, or one failed launch, in a year would not
seem to have a strong space program, or to be able to help much with the
high frontier. But, there are some assumptions and definitions involved in
this which you may want to argue with. Still, how does having such data
compare to what one can recall from news stories over the past few years?
If having real data bursts your bubble(s), I am sorry, but other than saying
that I am sorry, I don't think I care to respond on this thread any more.
Sincerely, Jay Huebner
So the rest of you readers get something out of this, there is a fairly
complete set of images of launches at:
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~jcm/space/images/lv/type.html.
Here is a related resource http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf96333/measures.htm
show comparison by nation.
This link http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf97324/chp6.htm
has a comparison graph of the US reasearch articles by field for 1981 and
1993 compared to Japans for the same years.
It shows Japans share of Earth and Space sciences at roughly 3% at 1993, and
the US at 40%.
According to other tables on this site, Japan now spend roughly half of what
the US does on R&D http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf00306/start.htm#tables see
table 8) whereas from 1993 they spent roughly a third of what we did on R&D.
Unfortunately the breakdown comparision by sector is not available for years
past 1993.
Also this does not tell us the type and value of the research performed.
Tom M.
TomM@...
Clu tter
The web site I gave, lists, as one example, the countries that launched
different devices to space in the year 2000. The parent site,
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~jcm/space gives a lot more, for another example,
(probably) all launches ever made in the history of humans going to space.
Countries which have no launches, or one failed launch, in a year would not
seem to have a strong space program, or to be able to help much with the
high frontier. But, there are some assumptions and definitions involved in
this which you may want to argue with. Still, how does having such data
compare to what one can recall from news stories over the past few years?
If having real data bursts your bubble(s), I am sorry, but other than saying
that I am sorry, I don't think I care to respond on this thread any more.
Sincerely, Jay Huebner
So the rest of you readers get something out of this, there is a fairly
complete set of images of launches at:
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~jcm/space/images/lv/type.html.
Jay,
The data you presented is completely irrelevant to that question.
Let me decompose the issue into a couple of separate questions to clarify your thinking.
Does NASA spend more money than than ISAS and NASDA ? Clearly yes, many times more.
Does NASA launch more "stuff" into space than ISAS and NASDA ? again, clearly yes, many times more.
But once again, those were not the questions posed.
The question is, does NASA spend more money and/or effort into things which will get us to the High Frontier than NASDA/ISAS ? i.e. things which are interesting and useful. That is a much more difficult question to answer.
Cleary the vast majority of the money NASA spends and the "stuff" NASA puts into orbit, are useless pork which contribute nothing to getting us to the high frontier. Can we say the same things about NASADA and ISAS ?....possibly to some extent, but nothing like the scale of NASA.
I submit that the PERCENTAGE of money NASDA/ISAS spends on USEFUL things is a lot higher than NASA, although I really have no quantitative data to support that, I do not know much about the breakdown of NASDA/ISAS expenditures.
My intuition is that expenditures of NASA and ISAS/NASDA on useful things is pretty close. The nice thing about NASADA/ISAS is that they are a lot smaller than NASA, so do not have anything like as much overhead and beurocracy, so is probably a more pleasant environment to work in, and hence probably more productive per dollar.
The question still remains unanswered, and hence is an interesting one.
So as I read this, and " ...to clarify your thinking," the latest data
posted on this thread is either from before 1993, which shows that Japan
spends only a fraction of what the USA does on spaace, but their money was
(is) spent for pure honorable thoughts while that of the USA is mostly spent
on porky space craft which go to ISS, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Eros and other
operations like the Hubble and other science, including LINEAR, which is
finding NEO's. Or one can look at launch data from the year 2000, which
shows that Russia and the USA are launching nearly every month and Japan
failed on its one attempt. What data is real here, who is really doing
something is space, and why are you trying to mislead us about this?
Sincerely, Jay Huebner
> posted on this thread is either from before 1993, which shows that Japan
> spends only a fraction of what the USA does on spaace, but their money was
> (is) spent for pure honorable thoughts while that of the USA is mostly spent
> on porky space craft
Alas, the rest of your post goes astray.
> which go to ISS,
ISS is the ultimate piece of useless pork, which together with the Space Shuttle (which you forgot to mention), comprises the lion's
share of NASA's budget, and that is the central basis of my thesis.
The other items you mention....
> Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Eros and other
Jay, we have been over those before. Those projects represent a tiny portion of the NASA budget. Even Mars today is pork, pure and simple, pandering to misinformed public opinion - we are spending far too much money on it. Mars generates zillions of hits on JPL's web site, and that looks good when NASA holds out the rice bowl. That's it.
Missions to Mars represent pure entertainment for the public, they should be funded using the same mechanisms as Hollywood movies and Sports Stadiums, by private investment, not by tax dollars.
Hmm, in the USA sports stadiums get public funding, but that is getting off topic.
Jupiter and Saturn are more interesting from a scientific point of view than Mars, they tell us a lot more about the nature of the solar system. But they are irrelevant to space development.
And EROS, yes I am all in favor of missions to asteroids. It is a pity they take up such a tiny portion of NASA's bloated budget.
> operations like the Hubble and other science,
Hubble has been a significant contribution to pure science, but how does that help space development ?
>including LINEAR, which is
> finding NEO's. Or one can look at launch data from
Yep, I am all in favor of LINEAR, whose budget is a tiny
drop in the huge NASA bucket.
> the year 2000, which
> shows that Russia and the USA are launching nearly > every month and Japan
No they are not, as I explained before, in many cases Russia is not the customer, they are a contractor. Who is paying for the Russian launches ? I asked before, but you persistently ignore that question.
And even many of the USA launches are for the non-government and export markets.
Also, who built the payload in each case, who paid for it and how much ?
> failed on its one attempt. What data is real here,
For the record, Japan's launch work is the main area I think they are wasting money. But there is some politics there, note that Russia and Japan are in a territorial dispute over the Kiryl Islands, and Japan will not do much business with Russia until that is resolved.....and that could be a very long time.
So Japan is one country who will not be using Russian vehicles, hence have more of an incentive to develop their own. Although it would be cheaper to use Ariane.
Later,
Charles R.
I think you are basically saying that what NASA does that you can see
that you are interested in is good, and all else is pork. Most companies
keep their R & D close to their vests. Why you assume you know what is
possible on the ISS is interesting. I think the PR value of the ISS is also
worthy of more respect. Without a sustained program operating in space, I
submit many folks who might otherwise invest in space, would not believe
sustained programs there are possible. I can hear the argument now, "If we
can't operate a small space station in low Earth orbit, how could we operate
one bigger ..., or further away, or what-ever."
I basically agree with what I assume is your view of sending humans to
Mars, but we live in a democracy and what most folks want matters here.
NASA should pay attention. But so far we are not sending humans, but
probes. Also, life on Mars is not a trivial question, nor is why Mars lost
its atmosphere. Many sciences say humans continued existence on Earth is
not assured. We have a lot more to learn about that and it is useful to
study planets other than Earth. Had science not been done in the past,
humans would still believe Earth was the center of the universe, inside a
crystal sphere filled with air.
I have not responded about Russia because I don't have time to be
complete (I have to work), but developing commercial markets for its launch
services is a very useful thing for space commerce and colonizing space.
That is not a bad thing, but rather is wonderful. I didn't mention the
Space Shuttle because it is the way most humans and materials get to ISS,
which I assume readers of these e-mails know. Without the shuttles, there
is only Soyuz to take humans to orbit. There would be no ability to service
the Hubble, or send the probes to Saturn and Jupiter, for examples.
Jupiter and Saturn are most of the mass of the Solar System save the Sun,
and we would orbit them if there were no Sun. Their moons probably have
oceans and maybe life. All total, there are nearly 100 moons orbiting the
giant planets. And about sports stadiums, many are funded by tax dollars,
which I don't like, but maybe we could consider putting one on the Moon for
a future Olympics.
We agree on asteroids, but science like engineering and R & D is not 100
% efficient or successful. Was it NASA's fault the X-33, Delta-clipper and
Venture Star failed, or did private enterprise spend the money and come up
empty? Organizations are made up of humans, and I doubt that working for
the US government makes folks less productive than say working for Boeing or
a foreign government.
Sincerely, Jay Huebner
> We have a lot more to learn about that and it is useful to
>study planets other than Earth. Had science not been done in the past,
>humans would still believe Earth was the center of the universe, inside a
>crystal sphere filled with air.
city on the African continent.
Science does no good if it is allowed to take priority over application,
especially if this priority is due to
ignorance. I say put mars as far back on the back burner as possible and
focus on near earth space.
Science, in my opinion, does not lead to discoveries no matter how much
force is put behind it.
Rather, expansion and the errors inherent to it lead to discoveries. That
is how real science happens.
Someday mars may or may not become relevant, and if and when it does (or it
is at least convenient to do so),
red planet science will commence.
Is Mars relevant to Earth now? Yes, it is. However, all science is
theoretically relevant to everything anyway. The
real test of 'relevance' comes only after the knowledge is gained. Man's
only way around this is to test his fate. The original men
(I am being unrealistically hypothetical here, forgive me, the point is
still relevant) decided that although they could not be sure,
as there was no way to be, whether the gods would approve of them leaving
their ancestral home that they should or would anyway. It
is this expansion that created modern knowledge and living. I can't think
of a single dominant society in today's world that isn't a
somewhat recent offshoot (one of many) of a former dominant society (When I
say dominant society I mean the U.K. or U.S. vs. Afghanistan and
Somalia) except for Japan (which ironically seems to have the most intense
desire in the world to expand further,
seemingly to make up for this ?=).
If every ancient society sent out scouts to review new land, as opposed to
just going out and settling, no advances would be made.
If the Egyptians had (or could have) decided to settle in an abundant forest
environment as opposed to a limited desert environment with a single river
supporting it, they would never have developed irrigation techniques and
eventual sciences to achieve what they did. The advent
of sailing for coastal societies arguably led to the development of modern
Western science (sort of).
Basically, science can not be made to advance society. Society's needs
advance science. A perfect example of this is in
NASA's attempt to advance space science for the sole purpose of advancing
space science (no comment on the success of this venture). Most
of these technologies have found their uses in completely unrelated fields,
proving that science cannot be manipulated to achieve a
result.
-Zack Sorenson
note: I am in high favor of the technologies that NASA has produced, but do
wish they would shift their focus.
I agree. Japan is very resource (and energy) poor. They have to
import just about EVERYTHING. I would go so far as to say that Japan
will be the first country to begin an SPS like project. It would
reduce (or eliminate) their need to import oil.
king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
> Is it just me, or has it seemed in the past year or so that Japan
has been
> putting a lot more efforts into Space technology than even the
United
> States (Star Wars notwithstanding).
>
> I have not been saving the articles, but I've also read that Japan
is
> seriously considering moving to SPS as an energy resource, and of
course
> it makes extensive use of satellite technology.
>
> Has anyone been keeping closer tabs on Japan's Space
> infrastructure? Given NASA's current goals, is it possible Japan
is a
> more fertile field in which to try to develop the technology which
would
I think you are basically saying that what NASA does that you can see
that you are interested in is good, and all else is pork. Most companies
keep their R & D close to their vests. Why you assume you know what is
possible on the ISS is interesting.
I think the PR value of the ISS is also
worthy of more respect. Without a sustained program operating in space, I
submit many folks who might otherwise invest in space, would not believe
sustained programs there are possible.
Mir alone has already proven that long term manned space operations are possible. ISS contributes nothing new.
Investors
I can hear the argument now, "If we
can't operate a small space station in low Earth orbit, how could we operate
one bigger ..., or further away, or what-ever."
Where did you hear that ?
I basically agree with what I assume is your view of sending humans to
Mars, but we live in a democracy and what most folks want matters here.
That view is not reflected in the dollar values of the NASA line items. If public interest is a dominant factor, then the amount NASA spends on Mars today is unreasonably small (not that I care about that).
Are the public more interested in Shuttle and ISS than Mars ? I think not, but that is what the funding would imply.
NASA should pay attention. But so far we are not sending humans, but
probes. Also, life on Mars is not a trivial question, nor is why Mars lost
Oh yes, life on Mars.
Sorry, I cannot resist this one....here goes :-)
Which of these is the most scientifically likely and the most deserving of billions of dollars in funding:
The search for:-
Life on Mars
The Yeti
The Big Foot - I live in Oregon, so I would bid on that contract :-)
The Giant Sea Serpent
Mermaids
Elvis Presley
Controlled nuclear fusion
The Lost City of Atlantis
How many billions of dollars should we spend on each, and why ?
Each of them would be scientifically revolutionary.
Which has the best chance of being found ?
Personally I would not spend a penny on any of them.
And in fact very little of the Mars funding in NASA has been directed at searching for life.
On the other hand, if life on Mars is/was a serious possibility, then it should be protected like the Galapogos Islands, and human colonization should be prohibited until it is confirmed one way or the other.
Either way, no tax dollars should be spent sending lots of tourists to Mars.
which I assume readers of these e-mails know. Without the shuttles, there
is only Soyuz to take humans to orbit. There would be no ability to service
Soyuz works fine.
the Hubble, or send the probes to Saturn and Jupiter, for examples.
For Hubble I dare say we could cobble together a service mission using a Soyuz and an FGB tug.
No probes to Saturn have been launched on the Shuttle.
Cassini went up on a commercial Titan.
Galileo, Magellan and Ulysses each flew on Shuttle for political reasons, in an era when expendables were being supressed to justify the huge Shuttle development budget (as part of an agreement with OMB). Each and every one of them could have gone on a Titan, or a Proton for that matter.
Later,
Charles R.
> Galileo, Magellan and Ulysses each flew on Shuttle for political reasons, in
> an era when expendables were being supressed to justify the huge Shuttle
> development budget (as part of an agreement with OMB). Each and every one
> of them could have gone on a Titan, or a Proton for that matter.
Now that the Shuttle has been developed, is it cheaper or more expensive
to launch via the Shuttle or via a big dumb booster?
Just curious,
--Justin
It is not cheap to operate the Space Shuttle.
To build one would require significant investment.
A better question might be,
"Suppose that one computed the net present value of the R&D and other
costs needed to build a BDB, plus discounted operations costs for 10
flights. Would that number be more or less than the net present value of
the discounted operations costs for 10 Space Shuttle flights?"
Not that I know the answer to that question... but I think that that's a
better way to think about the problem.
Ron
Justin jhouk@...
12/12/01 09:35 AM
> Galileo, Magellan and Ulysses each flew on Shuttle for political
reasons, in
> an era when expendables were being supressed to justify the huge Shuttle
> development budget (as part of an agreement with OMB). Each and every
one
> of them could have gone on a Titan, or a Proton for that matter.
Quick clarification question:
Now that the Shuttle has been developed, is it cheaper or more expensive
to launch via the Shuttle or via a big dumb booster?
Just curious,
--Justin
Even the way I put it is not quite right. Instead of focusing on 10
flights, one needs to focus on equivalent payloads. Sorry.
Ron Menich
12/12/01 10:19 AM
It is not cheap to operate the Space Shuttle.
But your question is not well-posed. No big dumb booster exists today.
To build one would require significant investment.
A better question might be,
"Suppose that one computed the net present value of the R&D and other
costs needed to build a BDB, plus discounted operations costs for 10
flights. Would that number be more or less than the net present value of
the discounted operations costs for 10 Space Shuttle flights?"
Not that I know the answer to that question... but I think that that's a
better way to think about the problem.
Ron
Justin jhouk@...
12/12/01 09:35 AM
> Galileo, Magellan and Ulysses each flew on Shuttle for political
reasons, in
> an era when expendables were being supressed to justify the huge Shuttle
> development budget (as part of an agreement with OMB). Each and every
one
> of them could have gone on a Titan, or a Proton for that matter.
Quick clarification question:
Now that the Shuttle has been developed, is it cheaper or more expensive
to launch via the Shuttle or via a big dumb booster?
Just curious,
--Justin
> Quick clarification question:
> Now that the Shuttle has been developed, is it cheaper or more
expensive
> to launch via the Shuttle or via a big dumb booster?
>
> Just curious,
> --Justin
Clarification: STS is still under development. They recently
upgraded the fleet with lighter computers and LCD screens.
king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
I don't think it is at all unusual for a major system to be in a constant
state of at least minor revision. With big deployed systems, there are
always enhancements and bug fixes and change requests and...
Ron
"king_rodent" king_rodent@...
12/12/01 02:28 PM
> Quick clarification question:
> Now that the Shuttle has been developed, is it cheaper or more
expensive
> to launch via the Shuttle or via a big dumb booster?
>
> Just curious,
> --Justin
STS is the most expensive launcher on the market.
Clarification: STS is still under development. They recently
upgraded the fleet with lighter computers and LCD screens.
king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
> infrastructure? Given NASA's current goals, is it possible Japan is a
> more fertile field in which to try to develop the technology which would
> make the High Frontier possible?