01-Oct-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #1 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 1

Today's Topics:
			  Happy Fiscal New Year!
			 Re: Centaur wars [wars?]
			     Re: Centaur Wars
		      Is there space in our future?
		   Shooting nuc. wastes into deep space
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #316
			      Nuclear Waste
			       mass drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 October 1982 0000-PDT (Friday)
From: OTA at S1-A  (Ted Anderson)
Subject: Happy Fiscal New Year!

With the passing of the 1982 Fiscal Year, the Space Digest changes volume
number to three (3).  Have a prosperous fiscal year!
	The Moderator

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

Date: 30 September 1982 0955-EDT (Thursday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: Centaur wars [wars?]
CC: Gayle@CMU-CS-G at CMU-10A
Message-Id: <30Sep82 095547 DS30@CMU-10A>

	I wonder if this contamination comes only from nuclear
	power supplies?

Only?  What nuclear power supplies?  The contamination is from outgassing
from the Shuttle, mainly from the attitude control jets.

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

Date: 30 Sep 1982 at 1006-PDT
From: Andrew Knutsen <knutsen@SRI-UNIX>
To: Howard.Gayle.CMU-780G at Cmu-10a
cc: space at Mit-Mc
Subject: Re: Centaur Wars
In-reply-to: Your message of 29 Sep 1982 11:46:48-EDT.
Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX

	I read an article recently on satellite defense, where it said
that heavier shielding and more maneuverability was being added to
newer satellites for protection against anti-satellite weapons.  Maybe
the "cargo bay contamination" was some guys idea of a euphemism...
Tho it is there, but I hadnt heard of it being radioactive. Cosmic
rays perhaps, but do we use nuclear power in LEO?

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

Date: 30 Sep 1982 1624-PDT
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Is there space in our future?
To: space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

As a current Oasis board member, I feel I must comment on the recent 
messages about our last meeting.  

First of all, in my opinion, the summary given in the earlier message
was quite accurate.  That the "debate" came out as it did was a great
suprise.  Tom has come to Oasis meetings for some time, and likes to
state controversial opinions which he is good at defending.  We figured
it would be fun to have him debate someone who could refute these positions
at one of the monthly meetings.  Brian just moved out here a few months
ago and has been to some Oasis meetings, and we figured he would be a good
one to debate him.  As it turned out, Tom came off looking very good and
Brian was very bizarre.

Also, the meeting was not taped by Omni, it was taped by us.  Tom said that
if the debate was good, it may have been trancribed for Omni.  I doubt it
will be, but perhaps so.

Of course there are many spokespersons for space, and we have had many
of them at our meetings (which are usually the forth Sat. of the month, 
except for Nov and Dec. because of the holidays).


By the way, for those who don't know, Oasis=Organization for the Advancement
of Space Industrialization and Settlement, the LA chapter of the L5 
Society.  The name was thought up by the person who was the experiment
integration person for the first Getaway special, which flew on the last
Shuttle mission (didnt work the first few days though).

				Alan

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

Date: 30 September 1982  16:00-PDT (Thursday)
From: GANESHA at OFFICE-1
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Subject: Shooting nuc. wastes into deep space

re: grunwald's plan to shoot nuclear wastes into space, towards a
nearby star:
  Can't you just see some poor E.T. cruising around his solar system
stoping to investigate this funny little asteroid coming from around
Sol?  They might not take it as a friendly gesture....
					regards,
					Ganesha

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

Return-Path: <@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA:MBNorton@M.PCO.LISD.HIS>
Received: from M.PCO.LISD.HIS by MIT-MULTICS.ARPA dial; 01-Oct-1982 01:31:02-edt
Date:  30 September 1982 21:58 mst
From:  MBNorton.Scouting at M
Subject:  Re: SPACE Digest V2 #316
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 30 September 1982 03:03 mst from Ted Anderson

Re: Nuclear waste

A better idea than the moon is to merely every{ ten years
or so (whenever costs make it profitable) take all the waste
in the world and take it up on the shuttle.  Then, when in orbit
around the earth, jettison it towards the sun, the largest
fusion reactor known in this solar system...

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

Date: 1 October 1982 03:11-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Nuclear Waste
To: Bob.Zimmermann@CMU-ZOG at CMU-10A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Apparently you don't understand much about chain-reaction.
If you have much less than critical mass in near proximity, or if the
materials are so impure that you have lots of moderators, the level of
chain reaction is quite low, and very stable.
If you have almost critical mass, it's still quite stable, just sort
of hot and dangerous to be next to.
If you have a little more than critical mass with high purity, you get
a fizzle, the stuff heats up and some stuff boils off and the mass in
proximity is reduced to less than critical and it goes back into
almost-critical-mass condition.
If you start with zero and start adding new fissile material over a
period of time, each time it reaches critical mass it fizzles some,
boils off some, and returns to less than critical mass. Nothing like
you seem to be fearing can happen, where all of a sudden out of
nowhere the whole bunch of waste dumps simultaneously go critical and
blast the Moon out of orbit by some kind of explosion (your reference
to Space 1999, pure fiction!).
[Flip mode: You sound like the person who writes speeches for Ralph
Nader when he doesn't know anything about a subject and doesn't care
what he says as long as it scares people of nuclear energy. -- If that
remark offends any reader, just ignore it.]

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

Date:  1 October 1982 0414-EDT (Friday)
From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: mass drivers

	I was asked about mass drivers by a friend, and thought the reply
(essentially a core dump) might be of interest to this list.  Note that
the idea of a "slingshot" lunar catapult was one of the first
considered by O'Neill's group, and probably precedes the magnetic
launcher historically (Tsiolkovsky must have thought of it).  Kevlar,
with five or six times the strength to weight of steel, makes the idea
even more attractive.

	The basic ideas for a lunar magnetic catapult are quite old,
and such devices play central roles in the novels "The Moon is a Harsh
Mistress" by Robert Heinlein and "Earthlight" by Arthur Clarke.

	A lunar catapult got a boost when Gerry O'Neill's physics class
in 1969 formulated space habitat plans, with most of the material to
come from the moon, launched by a fixed structure.  The first idea was
simply a large horizontal rotating steel wheel; pellets would be
introduced at the middle, and move by centrifugal force to the rim,
which would be moving at lunar escape velocity - since lunar escape is
only 3 km/sec, steel is a reasonable material for such a launcher.
O'Neill's original article on the subject "The colonization of space",
Physics Today, Sept 1974, pp 33:40, gives results of some detailed
calculations of both this "rotary pellet launcher", and of the
"transport linear accelerator".  The idea has been further analyzed
since then, and O'Neill's Space Studies Institute continues to develop
fancier small working models.  Henry Kolm of MIT (of magnetically
levitated train background) has been working on the idea for a long
time, and he and his students built the earlier models in collaboration
with O'Neill's Princeton group.

	From personal contact I know Rod Hyde and Lowell Wood at
Livermore have done many calculations on similar ideas, and propose
Earth based launchers (its necessary to move aside a kilogram of
air for each square centimeter of surface area of the projectile,
and of course you need at least 10 km/sec Earth escape velocity,
but the idea is apparently workable).  Most of their stuff is not
published in the open literature.

	In 1980 Henry Kolm published similar conclusions about Earth
based magnetic launchers - "Mass Driver Update" by Henry Kolm, L5 News,
September 1980, pp 10:12.  He says earth based drivers were pushed by
a member of his magneplane team from the start, and were seriously
investigated by the 1977 NASA-Ames summer study, and Chul Park and
Stuart Bowen used simulation software developed for ablative re-entry
analysis of planetary probes to try out the idea, and found that
projectiles the size and shape of a telephone pole could be launched
from earth surface out of the solar system with loss of only 3% of
its mass and 20% of its energy to the atmosphere. (launcher 8km long,
1000g acceleration for 1.26 seconds). 

	The 1976 NASA-Ames Space Manufacturing study also has a survey
article on mass drivers - "Electromagnetic Mass Drivers" by F. Chilton,
B. Hibbs, H. Kolm, G.K. O'Neill and J. Phillips.  There have been lots
of follow up reports.

	Lowell and Rod also have more direct means for launching large
masses into suborbital, or escape trajectories from earth using deep
nuclear explosions - these could launch massive payloads into space or
destroy distany cities without radioactive residue.  (a small mountain
on a suborbital intercept course with a target would also be immune to
ABM lasers).  Similar advantages for smaller payloads have actually been
experimentally verified for "rail guns" - a projectile is accelerated
by the Lorentz force (filed line repulsion) of the magnetic field
generated by a huge current from an enormous capacitor bank discharging
into a pair of parallel conductive rails shorted by a plasma arc.  The
arc is accelerated down the length of the rails to speeds not limited
by molecule velocities as in chemical guns.  Desert experiments by Los
Alamos and Livermore have already achieved earth escape velocity:
"Fastest shot in the West: A railgun", Science News, December 12, 1981,
 p 375.

	More exotic ideas have been growing recently.  An idea that
started in crude form in a discussion between McCarthy and Minsky, that
stationary payloads could be supported at low orbital heights by the
reaction of pellet streams between them moving around the earth in fast
polygonal trajectories, with magnetic deflection at the corners
supporting stations evolved in further discussions with a number of
people (mostly Bob Forward) into a relatively simple scheme where a
pellet stream is accelerated upward by a vertical mass driver buried in
the ground.  The stream travels in a vertical aboveground tube where
regularly spaced coils incrementally decelerate it - the reaction to
the deceleration supports the tube against gravity.  As the pellets
reach the top of the tube most of their initial kinetic energy is gone,
and they are turned around and guided into a tube parallel to the first
one.  This has coild which slowly accelerate the pellets downward
(again, the reaction supports the tube), the power for the acceleration
coming mostly from the decelerating coils at the same height in the
first tube, with a makeup for resistive and other losses.  By the time
the pellets again reach the ground they are moving downward at the same
horrendous speed they started with going upward.  A buried mass driver
parallel to the first decelerates them, and feeds them deep underground
into the mouth of the first one, where they again are accelerated.  A
tower of this kind is not limited by strength/weight limits of
materials, and could be grown from the ground up.  Rod and Lowell did a
design for this, and concluded that a 1 GW power station could keep a
stalk of this able to support shuttle-sized loads and extending almost
to synchronous orbital height standing.  The results of a power failure
would be pretty interesting.  They presented their results at a southern
california AAIA meeting this summer, but I don't have a reference or a
copy of the paper at this time.

	Many other applications of this "ballistic levitation" idea are
possible, and two were recently published - "The Skyrail" by Kenneth
Brakke, L5 News, July 1982, pp 6:9 This describes an idea very similar
to the M&M polygonal orbital pellet stream supported station mentioned
above, except that the material moving at above orbital velocity
supporting stations moving at below orbital velocity is a continuous
belt (with expansion couplings).  This has some stability and aiming
advantages to using pellets, and makes it easier to (inductively) hold
onto the fast moving stream to gain or shed orbital velocity.

"The Launch Loop" by Keith Lofstrom, L5 News, August 1982, pp 8:9
Proposes a very long (2000 km) earth based magnetic launcher which by
virtue of its great length accelerates payloads to only 3 gravities
while imparting enough velocity to reach geosynchronous or lunar
height.  2000 is very far for a perfectly straight run on our rough and
rumbly earth, so Lofstrom proposes to levitate the whole structure 120
km above the surface (out of the way of both air and orbital traffic)
by means of a closed magnetic accelerating tube which recirculates an
iron ribbon 5 cm wide and 2.6 mm thick at 12 km/sec.  This is faster
than orbital velocity, and when made to follow the curvature of the
earth produces a net upward centrifugal force which suspends the rest
of the structure, which is stationary.  200 km kevlar tethers anchor it
to the ground, and keep it from flying into space.  His design could
launch 20 five ton payloads (including passengers) to geosynchronous
height and beyond.

	Other uses for mass drivers, such as reaction engines on an
asteroid, in which solar energy is used to propel bits of rock, the
reaction of which moves the asteroid (with specific impulses as high as
ion rockets, if desired), have been suggested.

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

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

02-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #2 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 2

Today's Topics:
			 Formula for Sun Position
		       Re: SPACE Digest V2 #316    
		 Re: Shooting nuc. wastes into deep space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  1 Oct 1982 0958-EDT
From: PRJohnson at MIT-XX (Paul R. Johnson)
Subject: Formula for Sun Position
To: Sky-Fans-MIT at MIT-XX, Space at MIT-MC

Does anyone know of, or know where to find, a formula or algorithm
for computing the Sun's position (in right ascension and declination, or
whatever) given Universal Time?

Any related forumla that can be transformed into this would be useful,
and accuracy need not be great (say within 1/2 a degree?).

Reply to me, I'll summarize replies if people are interested.

---Paul Johnson (PRJohnson@MIT-XX)
-------

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

Date:  1 Oct 1982 0945-PDT
From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins )
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #316    
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 30-Sep-82 0303-PDT

I have just received digest 316 for the fourth time.  Is something wrong?
David
-------

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

Date: 1 Oct 82 13:38:59-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!faunt (Doug) at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Shooting nuc. wastes into deep space
Article-I.D.: hplabs.832
Via:  Usenet; 2 Oct 82 0:19-PDT

References: sri-unix.3566

I can also see this alien saying "I`m rich, lots of radioactives"

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

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

03-Oct-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #3 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 3

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #316
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 October 1982 06:14-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #316
To: MBNORTON.SCOUTING@M at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

"Jettison" usually means just dump overboard with nearly zero relative
velocity. If you're in low Earth orbit and you jettison something
"towards the sun", it'll still be in low Earth orbit. It takes an
awful lot of delta-vee to get from low Earth orbit to trans-Solar
trajectory. Nothing onboard the shuttle can apply that delta-vee. You
need some kind of upper stage, carefully fired over a period of
perhaps minutes, carefully aimed the whole time, to get the delta-vee
in a particular direction. I don't think any normal meaning of
"jettison" will do the trick. (Let's develop the SEPS. Then we'll at
least be technologically capable of such feats as shoving waste into
trans-Solar trajectory or going to get an asteroid and shoving it into
Earth orbit.) Remember, we're in a deep gravitational well, even in LEO.

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

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

04-Oct-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #4 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 4

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Earthworms don"t need light
			       Earthlight 
		   Re: chemical limits to space travel
		   Re: chemical limits to space travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 82 13:27:59-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gizsys!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Earthworms don"t need light
Article-I.D.: omsvax.144
Via:  Usenet; 3 Oct 82 18:05-PDT

References: sri-unix.3328

There's an assumption in the whole argument about not using TV at
night on the Moon that TV cameras are as blind as people.  Not so, as
anyone who's used a Starlight 'scope can testify.  A good
third-generation image intensifier camera, such as are used by the
military now (and were first designed in the mid-1970's) is capable of
getting a usable picture by starlight on a clear, moonless night on Earth.
That's the only kind of night you get on the Moon.  In addition, if we
are operating on the near side of the Moon (which is the place to be,
since we can use line-of-sight communications for our remote control
channels), we get Earthlight for a good part of the night.  At worst,
operations would need to be suspended for a day or two (Earth measure)
around the new Earth (Lunar midnight).

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

Date: 03 Oct 1982 1952-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Earthlight 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

By golly, you're right!  Except earthlight is at a maximum during midnight
on the middle of the lunar nearside.  (Full earth at midnight on midline!)
It complements the sun nicely there at all times - only darkouts would
happen during lunar eclipses, and even then the earth-atmosphere refracted
light should give a pretty bright reddish illumination (judging from the
color of the moon during a lunar eclipse).  And earthlight is about 50
times brighter than moonlight, so seeing, with a reasonably light
efficient sensor (not even a starlight scope) should be no problem at any
time.  Just before sunrise and after sunset, there's only a half-earth.
Away from midline things are less symmetric, and on boundary with farside
you get full earth after sunrise, and sliver of earth before sunset, or
vice versa (and very low earth angle at all times besides).  On the
farside it really is dark half the time, so those SF stories that refer to
it as the darkside aren't entirely wrong.

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

Date: 1 Oct 1982 11:46-PDT
From: dietz at usc-cse
Subject: Re: chemical limits to space travel
To: minsky@mit-oz,space@mit-mc
Origin: usc-cse

I don't think the laser propulsion scheme is a valid rebuttal to
Heppenheimer's position.  He argued that chemical rockets and any space
program based on them are mature.  A workable laser scheme would be a
radically different technology.  Also, I don't think just *proposing* a
scheme is adequate.  A working model is necessary.  The laser based
launch systems have serious practical difficulties:  laser
inefficiencies, laser accuracy, atmospheric limits on power density.
 

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

Date: 1 Oct 1982 11:46-PDT
From: dietz at usc-cse
Subject: Re: chemical limits to space travel
To: space@mit-mc
Origin: usc-cse

I don't think the laser propulsion scheme is a valid rebuttal to
Heppenheimer's position.  He argued that chemical rockets and any space
program based on them are mature.  A workable laser scheme would be a
radically different technology.  Also, I don't think just *proposing* a
scheme is adequate.  A working model is necessary.  The laser based
launch systems have serious practical difficulties:  laser
inefficiencies, laser accuracy, atmospheric limits on power density.
 

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

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

05-Oct-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #5 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 5

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Earthworms don"t need light
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 October 1982 21:42-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Earthworms don"t need light
To: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gizsys!omsvax!bc at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Could you possibly not have checked the geometry before sending your
message? Assuming the lunar station is on the near side of the Moon,
say at the point facing directly towards Earth, new-Earth is at noon,
not at midnight. At midnight the Earth is full. Look at it this way,
the Sun is either beyond Earth in the direction you're facing, at
noon, or behind your back shining right on the part of Earth you're
watching, or at some angle between. Worst case is just before sunrise
or just after sunset when the moonbase gets no direct light and only
half the maximum Earthshine, or during a dark lunar eclipse.

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

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

06-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #6 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:
				Moonworms
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  5 Oct 1982 2257-EDT
From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ
Subject: Moonworms
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: REM at MIT-MC


Gee, these nightwalks are gonna be fun.  I don't see any difficulty
about the robot's vision, in view of those correct arguments about
always having at least half-earthlight at the worst twilight hours.
The robot eyes can be made suitably high gain from the start, so they
don't have to wear special intensifier glasses.

As for the people, I think we have all been forgetting one annoying
fact - radiation.  Except for occasional spacewalks, us poor worms
will need the equivalent of a lot of shielding mass during the long
haul.  I forget what's needed.  At the worst times - e.g., during
solar flares, you need equivalent of a meter or two of rock.  The rest
of the time, I suppose you need a good couple of decimeters of earth
between you and nothingness - in the lunar daytime.  So in the
day, you have to stay home in your cave.

If this is correct, then most human exo-work will have to take place
in the evenings.  So the problems will be more of staying warm than
staying cold - which was the problem for Apollo moonwalks.

That's good, I think.  Presumably it is much easier to heat spacesuits
than cool them.  (Or does the evaporation of breathing air supply
enough cooling without extra help?)

It occurs to me that there's also emergency heat within easy reach, if
you get stuck out there.  Just scrape some soil away, and bask in the
almost-glowing subsoil.  Anyone know the depth-temperature curve for
lunar permafrost?
-------

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

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

07-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #7 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 7

Today's Topics:
			Excerpt from New Scientist
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 6 October 1982  19:27-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To:   space at MIT-MC
Subject: Excerpt from New Scientist
Cc:   webb at CMU-20C

From the 30 September New Scientist:

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE CATCHES A DOSE OF SPACE FEVER

American companies are beginning to muscle in on the profitable
applications of space technology.  Comsat, a satellite operator in
Washington, plans to run up to a dozen craft for observing the weather
or mapping the Earth.  The satellites' operators are at present either
NASA or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).

Meanwhile, a group of businesspeople says it wants to develop a small
but powerful rocket called Centaur for commercial applications.  The
government is providing $450 million to develop Centaur as a booster
that will lift scientific payloads from the shuttle to high orbits.
Orbital Systems of Chicago wants to take over the rocket and sell it to
customers for $30 million per launch.

The proposition will appeal to firms that want to put satellites into
orbits higher than 500 km, which is about as far as the shuttle can
travel above the Earth.  An inertial upper stage, which is due to make
its debut in November of the shuttle's first operational flight, can
take satellites higher.  But this stage lacks power and can lift into
orbit only relatively light payloads.

The commercial moves come on top of the successful launch by Space
Services of Houston of a prototype rocket which it says will carry
satellites into space more cheaply than NASA's vehicles.  Also, a firm
in Princeton called Space Transportation wants to buy a space shuttle
for $1000 million for commercial trips into space.

James Beggs, NASA's admintrator, is a keen advocate of private
enterprise.  He says he would like private companies to take over
complete responsibility for running launch vehicles like the shuttle,
leaving his agency to concentrate on research and development.

Comsaha christened "Earthstar" its proposed network of weather and
land-resources satellists.  The network would comprise the Landsat-D
mapping satellists now in orbit, plus a similar craft due to be launched
in the next couple of years.  It would also operate the weather
satellites run by NOAA, including the GOES craft, in geostationary
orbit.

Paul Maughan, the director of Comsat's Earthstar programme, refuses to
say exactly how much his company would pay the government to run the
satellites.  But this would probably be in the region of $500 million.
But governments and private companies have invested $1000 million over
the past decade in the Landsat programme alone.  This includes the cost
of putting up four satellites (of which only Landsat-D is transmitting
useful data) and of running ground stations (which would be included in
the package that Comsat wants to buy from the government).

Critics doubt the desirability of transferring to the private sector
hardware which, they say, it is important for the government to control.
For instance, developing countries could argue that a private firm would
be unwilling to guarantee access to data from remote-sensing
satellites.  The transfer could thus unsettle the US's relations with
the rest of the world.

Comsat shrugs off these reservations.  Maughan says that his
organisation is much better qualified than government agencies at
operating satellites and selling their data to customers.  At present,
the Landsat system recoups about $5 million per year by selling data,
but runs at a considerable loss.  Information from the weather
satellites is made available free to other government organisations
around the world including Britain's Met Office.

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

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

08-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #8 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:
		       Student Experiments in Space
		     Re: Student Experiments in Space
		      Throwing away nuclear "waste".
			Excerpt from New Scientist
			 More on STS-5 Spacewalk
			    Japaneese Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 82 7:27:59-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Student Experiments in Space

Aboard STS-5 this November will be experiments from Michlle Issel,
Aaron K. Gillette, and D. Scott Thomas, all 18 years old.  All of
the experiments deal with crystal growth in weightlessness.  They
are hoping to provide new insight on collagen.

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

Date: 6 Oct 82 16:41:31-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Student Experiments in Space

I must apologize!  I said this morning that all three student experiments
to be aboard STS-5 dealt with crystal growth in flight.  That is totally
incorrect (I didn't read the article closely enough; ah well, it was
early)  Michelle Issel's experiment deals with crystal growth in micro-
gravity; D. Scott Thomas' experiment deals with the effect of weightlessness
on convection currents, and Aaron K. Gillette's experiment deals with
the effects of weightlessness on sponge cell colonies.

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

Date:  4 Oct 1982 at 1613-CDT
From: vomlehn at utexas-11
Subject: Throwing away nuclear "waste".

One thing which discussion on shooting nuclear wastes into space or
into the sun or wherever is that we may WANT them later on.  There
are all sorts of interesting isotopes in the wastes from various
reactors and just because we haven't found a use yet doesn't mean that
they won't be useful in the future and it might be rather expensive to
have to make them from scratch rather than simply seperating them.
 
Also, as a side note, it is possible to subject the wastes to high
density neutron beams (such as may be generated by certain fussion
reactions) and thereby transmute them into radioactivly inert elements.

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

Date: 7 October 1982 19:29-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Excerpt from New Scientist

Would the proposed Centaur rocket for LEO-to-HEO maneuvers use
standard chemical-burning technology? How would it compare to the ion
rocket (SEPS) for cost of development, time from start-design until
operational, specific impulse, etc.? I.e. is the Centaur a temporary
device to get us by until the SEPS can be developed, or is it a total
waste of time&money compared to SEPS, or is it as good as SEPS? Should
we develop just the Centaur, or just the SEPS, or both?

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

Date: 6 Oct 82 16:47:24-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: More on STS-5 Spacewalk

The objectives for the STS-5 spacewalk were revealed by NASA today.
On day four of the five day flight, mission specialists Joe Allen
and William Lenoir will walk into the cargo bay while the bay doors
are open and take a space walk (termed so because of the lack of
an artificial environment)  The main goals of the 3 hour walk will
be to test out the new space suits, the procedures for Extra
Vehicular Activity (EVA), and also the tools that are hoped to be
used on STS-13, sometime in 1984, to repair the Solar Maximum
Satellite.

On days 1 and 2 of STS-5, two satellites will be launched from the
cargo bay via spring like devices.

The landing of STS-5 will be the first try at a fully automated
landing, though the crew will be ready to take manual control if
necessary.

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

Date: 7 Oct 82 10:38:32-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekid!jm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Japaneese Shuttle
Article-I.D.: tekid.484
Via:  Usenet; 8 Oct 82 0:17-PDT

The following is taken from a copyrighted article in
Aviation Week and Space Technology (must reading for space types).

	Japan Studies Small Shuttle Development

	Paris---

	Japan is evaluating development of a small shuttle
	orbiter-type vehicle as part of future planning studies underway
	at NASDA, Japan's space development agency.

	Japanese representatives attending the International Astro-
	nautical Federation (IAF) conference here said the shuttle studies
	are in the early concept stage.  Initial evaluations have defined a
	vehicle capable of carrying 3 crewmembers - pilot, copilot
	and flight engineer/specialist.  The studies include the use of air-
	breathing jet engines on the vehicle to provide powered flight
	for the final phase of the return to earth.

	The Japanese representatives said NASDA is moving ahead
	with its near term plans to widen the country's system of
	expendable launch vehicles and is still targeting the start of
	test missions with the new H=1 vehicle in 1986.

	The H-1 is a follow-on to the Japanese N-series launchers, and is
	expected to enter operational service in the late 1980s.


(AW&ST, Oct 4, 1982)

I wonder if the Japanese will do for space what they did for cars
and consumer electronics.  Is there a Nissan Shuttle in our future?

Jeff Mizener
Tektronix, Beaverton

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

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

09-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #9 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 9

Today's Topics:
			   Centaur upper stage
			  neutron neutralization
		 Computer simulation of space operations
			Conestoga in Discover Mag
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  8 October 1982 0924-EDT (Friday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: rem at MIT-MC
Subject: Centaur upper stage
CC: space at MIT-MC
Message-Id: <08Oct82 092410 DS30@CMU-10A>

The "new" Centaur upper stage is also known as the "wide-body Centaur."
It is a new version of the H2/O2 Centaur which has been flying on top
of Atlases for 20 years.  The difference is that its fuel tank is
much wider, for more efficient use of the Shuttle payload bay.

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

Date: 8 Oct 1982 09:25:04-PDT
From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg])
To: vomlehn at utexas-11
Subject: neutron neutralization
Cc: space at mit-mc

	Date:  4 Oct 1982 at 1613-CDT
	From: vomlehn at utexas-11
	Subject: Throwing away nuclear "waste".
	...
	Also, as a side note, it is possible to subject the wastes to high
	density neutron beams (such as may be generated by certain fussion
	reactions) and thereby transmute them into radioactivly inert elements.

This seems VERY unlikely.  Since the heavy, fissile isotopes all
have an excess of neutrons, their daughter nuclei will generally
have an even larger excess of neutrons.  That is why they are
radioactive.  Bombarding these guys with even more neutrons, it
seems to me, would just make the problem worse.  Sure, some of the
nuclei would give up and beta-decay or fiss instantly, but most
would just absorb the neutron and become more radioactive.
For more information on these processes, see the Scientific American
article called "Nuclei Far From Stability", from sometime in mid-1978,
by J. Cerny and some other guy.  A very good article, even if the
computer graphics are substandard.

Rumors of this technology seem to be very common these days,
along with ultra-cheap solar power and other perpetual motion
machines of the third type.  Would that it were true...
---
Jef

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

Date: 8 Oct 1982 16:44:18-PDT
From: A.exp@Berkeley
To: u:space@mit-mc
Subject:  Computer simulation of space operations

There was another article about Grumman tactical simulation using
computers in the new Aviation Week and Space Technology.  Another
such project, at Boeing, sponsored by ARPA, was discussed in a
previous issue, about 9 months ago.

Also, if anyone is interested in space colonization simulation, please
contact me, because I would like to see if there is enough interest
to have facilities established.

P. S. I sent the above message about 3 days ago originally, but have not seen it
in the space digest, nor have any possible responses gotten to me.  I
have also only received the Friday digest, and am therefore uncertain
what mail may have been sent to me.

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

Date:  8 Oct 1982 2038-PDT
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Conestoga in Discover Mag
To: space at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

The  November  82 issue of Discover Magazine has a pretty good article
on the flight of Conestoga I.  Pages 36-42  with  the  title:   A  "No
Frills"  Trip into Space.  Three nice photos of the lift-off (and, for
contrast, a photo of the 1981  explosion).   There's  also  an  insert
article  on  page  42 called:  Meanwhile, A Setback for the Europeans.
The latter is about a half-page on the recent Ariane failure.

In  my  opinion,  worth  a look (if you don't mind Discover's Readers'
Digest-Newsweek hybrid style).

Dennis
-------

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

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

10-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #10
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:
			   Mass drivers: update
	   Elimination of nuclear wastes by neutron irradiation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  9 Oct 1982 0647-EDT
From: HPM at CMU-20C
Subject: Mass drivers: update
To: space at MIT-MC


addendum to message of a few days ago - A recent survey of
electromagnetic launching can be found in

"An alternative launching medium" by Henry Kolm and Peter Mongeau,
IEEE Spectrum, V19 #4, April 1982.

A comprehensive overview, containing 30 papers from the 1980 conference
on Electromagnetic Guns and Launchers, is found in
IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, V MAG-18 #1, January 1982.
-------

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

Date:  9 OCT 1982 1959-EDT
From: BRUC at MIT-ML (Robert E. Bruccoleri)
Subject: Elimination of nuclear wastes by neutron irradiation
To: jef at LBL-UNIX
CC: space at MIT-MC

     Without knowing the beta decay rate for a variety of neutron
enriched isotopes, one cannot categorically eliminate transmutation as
a means for eliminating nuclear waste. As long as the steady state
absorption of neutrons by a mix of waste material is less than beta
decay for the mix, and if stable isotopes can be removed efficiently,
the method could work.
     It is true that neutron absorption will lead to heavier isotopes,
but they will be more likely to fission. The mean molecular weight for
a continually irradiated mass would not necessarily be very large, and
it may contain a significant quantity of stable isotopes. I would
guess the data is available to simulate this process accurately to
see if it could work.

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

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

11-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #11
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 11

Today's Topics:
			Shuttle Ahead of Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Oct 82 22:35:11-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Ahead of Schedule
Article-I.D.: alice.968
Via:  Usenet; 10 Oct 82 4:07-PDT

With the process of loading the highly volatile nitrogen tetroxide and
monomethyl hydrazine into the Columbia's Orbital Maneuvering System
completed (they started loading Tuesday and finished today), the
preparations for the launch of STS-5 are 8 hours ahead of schedule.
Tuesday, The Canadian Anik and Satellite Business Systems satellites
will be moved into the Columbia's white room.  At that time, they will
be in a container for testing and if they are OK, they will be placed
in the cargo bay on 18 October.  They are to be ejected from the cargo
bay by a giant spring and then their own motors will ignite to carry
them to geostationary orbit.  NASA is charging each company $10 million
for the ride.

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

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

12-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #12
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 12

Today's Topics:
				 centaur
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1982 0948-PDT
From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL>
Subject: centaur
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: king at KESTREL

	Does anyone out there know how its doing?  I was reading in
September 10th's Science about a flap as to whether NASA should be
allowed to modify Centaur for the Shuttle, or forced to accept a new
High Energy Upper Stage.

						Dick

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

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

13-Oct-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #13
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 13

Today's Topics:
			   Fate of the Centaur
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 OCT 1982 0002-EDT
From: BRUC at MIT-ML (Robert E. Bruccoleri)
Subject: Fate of the Centaur
To: space at MIT-MC
CC: king at KESTREL

The amendment to the HUD - Independent Agencies Bill to delete Centaur
funding was rejected by the House by a large margin. Apparently, the
Air Force decided that it would need the Centaur's power to haul
shielded satellites into geosynchronous orbit.  The amendment to
delete Centaur funding was sponsored by Ronnie Flippo. Details about
the vote appeared in a recent issue of Science (about two weeks ago).

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

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

14-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #14
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 14

Today's Topics:
			GUTS and total conversion
			       We are alone
			    Comet Interception
			 Listening to the Shttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 1982 10:07-PDT
From: dietz at usc-cse
Subject: GUTS and total conversion
To: space@mit-mc,energy@mit-mc
Origin: usc-cse

I'm fascinated by recent results concerning Grand Unified TheorieS
(GUTS) of elementary particles.  There are several promising directions
for baryon-number nonconserving interactions.  One example is proton
decay.  It is thought (if GUTS are right) that the proton has a
half-life of about 1.0E31 years (give or take).  When it decays most of
its energy is released (in the form of a positron and a neutral pion).
A very effcient energy source, if very slow.

Of greater interest is the GUTS monopole.  It is very massive (1.0E16
Gev, as opposed to about 1 Gev for a proton).  Near the particle itself
the broken symmetries of oridnary space are reunified, allowing baryon
number changing interactions.  Monopole catalysed total converion
becomes a possibility.

Of greatest interest is the possibility of neutron oscillations.  Some
GUTS suggest that neutrons, under certain conditions, should
"oscillate" between neutron/anti-neutron states with a time-scale of
1E5 to 1E7 seconds.  A recent paper in Nature (30-Sept-82, ppp.427-428)
points out that this could provide an explanation for a stubborn puzzle
from cosmic ray physics.

Physicists have found a very puzzling oversupply of anti-protons in
cosmic rays.  Numerous explanations have been attempted but have been
contradicted by the absence of high levels of anti-neutrino's, gamma's
and anti-helium4.  The paper suggests that neutrons produced by
supernovae oscillate into anti-neutrons which then decay into
anti-protons.  The process could also occur with solar flare neutrons.
A single supernova could produce 1E16 kilograms of anti-protons.

So why hasn't this been observed?  Because the neutron has a magnetic
moment, the oscillations are suppressed by magnetic fields.  The
interstellar field is only 1E-6 to 1E-7 gauss.  Even so, only about
.01% of the neutrons produced by a SN will oscillate before they decay.
The oscillation rate is inversely proportional to the square of the
magnetic field, so neutron oscillations are suppressed on earth (mag
field around a gauss).  I presume that the interactions between
nucleons in a nucleus also suppresses oscillations.

If this is true there's an energy efficient way to manufacture
antimatter:  produce neutrons, place them in a superconducting bag from
which all mag fields have been expelled, and wait.  Some of the
neutrons will oscillate into anti-neutrons and decay, giving
anti-hydrogen.  From there to a starship is just (!) engineering.
 

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

Date: Wednesday, 13 October 1982  18:19-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To:   Space at MIT-MC
Subject: We are alone
Cc:   webb at CMU-20C

There's an interesting article in the 7 October New Scientist which
suggests that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.  The
article is too long to type in here, but I'll try to summarize the
argument.  The author is Frank J. Tipler, of Tulane University.

There are two basic reasons Dr Tipler argues this: (1) "All the great
contemporary experts on the theory of evolution -- Franciso Ayala,
Theodosius Dobzjansky, Ernst Mayr and George Simpson -- are unanimous in
claiming that the evolution of an intelligent species from simple
one-celled organisms is so improbable that we are likely to be the only
intelligent species ever to exist." (2) It would be easy for any
intelligent species to leave evidence of its existence, and we observe
no such evidence.

Point (1) is based on the idea that intelligent behavior is based on
several evolutionary changes, and that until the level of increased
intelligence is reached, no evolutionary advantage is gained, and in
fact there is some disadvantage (because the nervous system is more
complicated).  So it is extremely unlikely that intelligent behavior
would evolve.

Point (2) is based on the idea that very soon (within 100 years) we will
have the capability for making self-reproducing machines which, once the
first one is launched, will colonize the entire galaxy within 300
million years (even using conventional rocket technology).  Such a
machine will work by going to a solar system, mining asteroids to
reproduce itself, sending off the copies, then exploring the solar
system for various purposes, including colonization.  If such a machine
existed in our solar system, we would have had evidence of it long ago.

Since we observe no such machines, there are no other intelligent beings
in the universe (or at least no others interested in meeting other
intelligent beings).

Tipler concludes that it is a waste of time and money to be looking for
radio signals from extraterrestial civilizations.  If such civilizations
were interested in being found, we would have noticed them long ago.

Jon

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

Date: 13 Oct 1982 2003-EDT
From: Clifford V. R. Ludwi <LUDWIG at MIT-XX>
Subject: Comet Interception
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: ludwig at MIT-XX

The Oct. 11 issue of AW&ST had a very interesting article 
about diverting the International Sun Earth Explorer (ISEE) 3
probe to observe comet Giacobini-Zinner in Sept., 1985.  This
would mean that the US will be the first country to directly
observe a comet.  This mission will beat the international 
Halley mission by about six months.  Also of note;  this is
an EXISTING spacecraft that is being diverted from its current
mission for this event.  Unfortunately, the diversion will preclude
completion of its assigned mission.

The mission has already started.  If all goes as planned, ISEE 3
will use the moon for gravity assist, passing within about 60 mi.
of the lunar surface (final trajectory planning will be completed
as more is known about the comet's orbital parameters).
ISEE 3 does not have imaging equipment aboard, but it "should
be able to return information on plasma densities, flow speeds,
temperatures and the character of heavy ions in the tail".
It is hoped that the probe will pass within 1864 mi. of the 
comet nucleus.
-------

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

Date: 13 October 1982 21:43-EDT
From: Stewart Cobb <HSC at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Listening to the Shttle
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC


   Someone at Johnson Space Flight Center told me that, during Shuttle
flights, a ham radio club at JPL broadcasts on shortwave the
Shuttle-to-Houston communications (the same signal you can hear on
Bell's "900 number").  If this is true, it would save many of us a lot
of money in phone bills.  Can someone in L.A. get details on this?

   By the way, Johnson broadcasts the signal on 171.5 MHz (FM), for
the benefit of its off-duty mission controllers (I believe that's the
correct frequency, but I'm not totally sure).  Unfortunately, it's
strictly a local broadcast.

                                Stewart Cobb (hsc @ mit-mc)

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

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

15-Oct-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #15
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 15

Today's Topics:
			     Re: We are alone
				  Alone
			       We are alone
			  Re: Comet Interception
		       Re: More on STS-5 Spacewalk
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 1982 8:43-PDT
From: dietz at usc-cse
Subject: Re: We are alone
To: webb@cmu-20c,space@mit-mc
Origin: usc-cse

This has already been discussed in space digest within the past year.
I still don't think anyone has refuted
 

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

Date: 14 Oct 1982 1715-EDT
From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ
Subject: Alone
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: minsky at MIT-OZ

The arguments about evolution and intelligence are presumably wrong.
They usually have the form: "I am a famous evolutionist, and I can't
figure out how an early form of a wing could help an animal fly.
Therefore the evolution of birds is extremely unlikely and can have
only happened once in the universe."  Yet insects and bats and spiders
and, soon, squirrels, and soon, some fish may make it.

I find it hard to see how almost any vestige of intelligence or
learning could fail to be useful.  It only has to find a niche that
pays off against the biolgical cost of the extra cells or whatever.

As for Tipler's other arguments, each must be dealt with by itself.
One can't retyute it because he might be right.  But, in a few hundred
years we may grow enough to understand:

     THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF EXTRA-PLANETARY LIFE: IT IS AN
     UNPARDONABLE CRIME TO UNLEASH ANY SELF-REPRODUCING FORM,
     OUT OF CONTROL, INTO THE UNIVERSE.

Presumably, anyone can figure this out, including Tipler.  The
punishment is cultural sterilization, if you are caught doing this.
So inteligent races will think twice about making fast-spreading
self-reproducing forms.

As for the rest, there is that little problem of Defense.  Perhaps
most intelligent cultures waver between boasting about their
accomplishments, and prudently waiting to see what the others are
like.  In that scenario, we'd have a universe of intelligent races
each waiting to be sure that the others have only good intentions.

I should add that you must remember that all members of advanced
civilizations are immortal.  Everyone seems to forget this.  In a few
hundred years Man, too, can choose immortality.  At that point, your
attitude probably changes subtly.  Today we think nothing of sending
out radio signals that will be detected at the hub of the Galaxy in a
few millenia.  "Who cares what they do about it, we say, we'll be all
dead by then."  But our descendants will not have that excuse, so
they'll think twice about revealing their existence.

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

Date: 14 October 1982 21:30-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: We are alone
To: Webb at CMU-20C
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

There are already several independent evolutions of intelligence on
our own planet. These include: Dolphins porposes and whales; Octipus.
I don't consider monkeys and apes independent, we're just the most
intelligent ape, but the two above are truly independent. What makes
us humans different from our monkey cousins and independent mollusks
and sea-mammals is that we have a compulsion to try new things even if
not immediately useful, to take anything that seems to be winning, and
to even make personal modifications to get better versions than what
we wer given. Witness teenagers adapting our language to suit their
needs for club passwords and jargon etc., as well as more useful
scientific jargon. Compare to gorillas chimpanzies and <tip of tongue,
monkeys with very colorful faces, which can learn sign language (their
vocal chords have trouble with speech) and use tools, but which just
use what they are shown instead of compulsively improving. (Gorillas
seem to be almost able to improve; They seem to use sign language in
ways they weren't taught, but not much.)

Thus I don't think it's correct to say intelligent life evolves only
rarely. But it may be correct to say intelligent life with a
compulsion to fix things to be better may only rarely evolve. The
Galaxy may be filled with life as intelligent as dolphins&whales,
monkeys&apes, octipusses, mixed in with lower forms, but without the
compulsion to build and improve technology. We may receive no radio
signals, but still discover intelligent life on planets around Epsilon
Eridani or Tau Ceti etc.

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

Date: 14 Oct 1982 2114-PDT
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Re: Comet Interception
To: space at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

While  it's  true  that  the  ISEE 3 probe will catch Giacobini-Zinner
about six months before the Soviets, the French and the Japanese catch
Halley's,  I  think  an  AP  story  out  of  Washington nails down the
underlying reason.

AP  referred  to  the  method  as a "bargain basement way" since it is
expected to cost $1.5 million compared to the estimated $250  to  $500
million  to  probe  Halley's  with  a  new  launch.  This conveniently
ignores any lost-opportunity cost associated with precluding the first
mission  completion.  But it seems to be a viable way of getting there
"fustest", if not with the "mostest".

The  AP  article  says that a short burn a month ago has ISEE 3 moving
away from the sun such that it'll  be  "behind"  Earth  by  Christmas.
Another  burn  on  Feb  6, '83, is required to make the gravity-assist
move past the moon.

While  most  of  us probably would have preferred to see a US probe to
Halley's, let's wish ISEE 3 lots of cosmic luck.  (Or is  it  ISECE  1
now?  C as in Comet.)

Dennis
-------

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

Date: 6 Oct 82 22:47:06-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxi!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: More on STS-5 Spacewalk
Article-I.D.: inuxd.178
In-Reply-To: Article alice.964
Via:  Usenet; 14 Oct 82 22:18-PDT

I've recently heard that if one's chosen experiment requires one'spresence,
one would be taken aboard for the flight on the Shuttle.  Does any one out
there have  some experiment thatrequires a retina scan...?
--Arlan Andrews, BEll Labs, Indy.

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

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

16-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #16
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:
		       Challenger's Engines Delayed
		       NASA to catch a comet - (nf)
			I don't think we're alone
			       We are alone
			  Re: Comet Interception
			Re: Re: Comet Interception
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 82 7:22:45-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Challenger's Engines Delayed
Article-I.D.: alice.974
Via:  Usenet; 15 Oct 82 3:45-PDT

The three main engines of the Challenger, supposed to have arrived
last month, still are not at KSC.  They are at Rockwell International's
test site.  Before installation, the engines must be certified by
Rockwell for use.  Two of the three have been certified after 500
second test firings, but the third was seen to have been leaking,
so they are doing more tests on it.  NASA says the delays could
push the 20 January launch date back by a week.  They hope to test
fire the engines on the pad by Christmas.

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

Date: 14 Oct 82 18:25:55-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!davy at Ucb-C70
Subject: NASA to catch a comet - (nf)
Article-I.D.: pur-ee.585
Via:  Usenet; 15 Oct 82 4:06-PDT

#N:pur-ee:3800004:000:1190
pur-ee!davy    Oct 14 13:13:00 1982

	WASHINGTON (AP) - The space agency has found a bargain-basement 
	way to beat the Soviets and be the first nation to catch a comet.
	  It won't be Halley's comet; catching up with Halley's would
        cost $250 million to $500 million, too high for the Reagan
	administration.

	  Instead, a satellite already in space and parked a million
	away will be sent to the comet Giacobini-Zinner in September
	1985 - six months before the Soviets, the French and Japanese 
	send three probes to Halley's.  The cost: Less than $1.5
	million.

	  "It will be the first measurements of a comet and its
	environment by a spacecraft," said Charles Redmond, a NASA
	spokesman.
	  
	  But, he added, the space agency was not "going out to make a
	big public splash" about its attempt to glean information
	about the celestial bodies, which follow an elliptical or
	parabolic orbit around the sun.

	    ........ filter out boring stuff ........

	  If the complicated procedures work, the spacecraft will pass
	through the several thousand mile wide tail of the comet on
	Sept. 11, 1985, to within 44 million miles of the head.



Taken from the Purdue Exponent, 10-14-82.

--Dave Curry
pur-ee!davy

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

Date: Friday, 15 October 1982, 11:46-EDT
From: John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ>
Subject: I don't think we're alone
To: space at mit-mc


The facts are these: we have precisely one example of a planet where
life appeared (Earth); one example where it didn't (the Moon) and one
example where the evidence is inconclusive but negative (Mars).  We have
no quantitative theory for predicting the probabilities for the
appearance of life forms on planets -- we don't know enough what life
>is< to make any such theories. (But even assuming carbon-based,
proteins, and nucleic acids type life, no such theory is forthcoming --
ask a physical chemist for the physical structure of water at 30 degrees
C to get an idea how far we are from such a theory. [hint: he won't be
able to tell you.])

My point is that, as scientists, we have no reason to say, either way,
if there could be other life in the universe.  One positive data point
>can< just be an anomaly -- we don't know how much of an anomaly it
would be either way (ie if there is lotsa life, or there isn't any at
all).  Believing either side is purely a matter of faith (faith = belief
by choice, rather than by reason).

Hypothesizing is a different matter.  For example, it is perfectly OK to
pursue a hypothesis generated and held by faith.  Just don't claim,
without qualification, that it's TRUE.

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

Date: Friday, 15 October 1982  09:57-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To:   Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Cc:   webb at CMU-20C, SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: We are alone

Well, if there are lots of whale-level "intelligent" beings out there we
won't detect them by listening to radio signals.  That was the main
point of the article, that listening for intelligence is a waste of time
and money.  And anyway it's not really clear how intelligent sea-mammals
are, though let's please not take up that argument here.  I don't think
there's a lot of evidence that octopi are very intelligent.

Jon

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

Date: 15 October 1982 19:23-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Comet Interception
To: DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think the current diversion of a solar satellite for comet duty
points out the desirability of having many spacecraft out there at the
same time. If we have lots of craft already out of Earth's gravity
well, going random directions and in random places around the Sun,
then when something new arrives, a comet typically, we can pick the
craft nearest it which is going in about the right direction and
divert it from its planned duties to comet duties. This is the same
argument that has been used for advocating having lots of manned
spacecraft in LEO at all times in case somebody needs to be rescued.
I'd like to see a lot more stuff put up there doing routine scientific
measurements until an opportunity arises to divert it to something
rare and interesting.

As for loss of data from the original mission, it's been up there 4
years so it's probably gotten a reasonable amount of info already. The
info it woul have gotten in the future if not diverted would be much
more redundant than the original data. It would be useful for
establishing trends over time, and for taking averages to get more
accurate estimates, and possibly valuable if a major event such as a
big solar flare or supernova occurred, but otherwise we could say that
the major part of the data is already gathered and the comet duty
would be more informative than continued originally-planned duties. --
Can somebody with more specific knowledge about this particular
space mission confirm or criticize my general observations above?

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

Date: 15 Oct 1982 2146-PDT
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Re: Re: Comet Interception
To: rem at MIT-MC
cc: space at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

Re:  Maas Msg of 15 Oct 83, 19:23-EDT.

I absolutely concur with the desirability of  having  many  spacecraft
"out  there"  available to be diverted to interesting missions.  But I
wouldn't mind seeing ISEE 3 go to Giacobini-Zinner AND a US  probe  to
Halley's, using the ISEE data to tweak the info gathering equipment on
the second probe in case there're  surprises....things  we  should  be
measuring  in Halley's, but won't know we should be measuring until we
get the feedback from G-Z.

Let's  hope  any  G-Z  data  of  importance  gets  passed to the three
countries who will be trying to visit Halley's in '85.

What  the AP article said about the changed mission was (quoting now):
"Many solar  physicists  wanted  to  keep  it  there,  performing  its
original mission.  But they were overruled by those who wanted to take
the opportunity to sample a comet."

Dennis
-------

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

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

18-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #17
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:
			      Re: Alone?????
			     Re: We are alone
			   SPACE Digest V3 #16
				  Alone
				  Alone
				  Alone.
				  Alone.
			   I doubt we're alone
			     Re: We are alone
			    We are not alone!
			I don't think we're alone
			 Re: We are alone - (nf)
			    what's the number?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Oct 82 12:52:22-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.els at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Alone?????
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.517
Via:  Usenet; 15 Oct 82 22:46-PDT


     What makes Tipler (or anyone else, for that matter) think that a civil-
ization will send out a few self-replicating robot ships.  What do they get
out of it?  If you're going to under take such a project, why not just build
a little bit bigger and do a .1c ark.  At least then you get the added benefit
of preserving the species.  For scientific interest, most stars are just like
most other ones, so just shoot some high velocity probes at points of astro-
physical interest.  To contact other civilizations, electromagnetic radiation
is definitely more cost effective(and faster, too!).  All in all, I find the
xeroxing robot idea totally unsatisifactory for explaining lack of contact.

    Of course, I could be wrong.  In that case, contact hasn't been made 
simply because we haven't performed a complete survey of the asteroids yet!



                              els[Eric Strobel]
                              pur-ee!pur-phy!els

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

Date: 15 Oct 82 19:05:16-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: We are alone
Article-I.D.: duke.2642
Via:  Usenet; 16 Oct 82 1:16-PDT

From:	Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University
Re:	Replicating robots

Actually there is a stronger form of Tipler's argument, which says
that what would be replicated would be colonists, that is, an
intelligent race would send out colonists (space arks or whatever)
to different systems, and that they would send colonists to other
systems, etc.  *This* could be the reason for expansion - it is
certainly a lot more plausible than just a lot of replicating
robots.  There is still the question of whether the drive towards
expansion and "progress" (in that sense) would be universal or
would persist in an extremely advanced society.  Even if it took
1000 years for the colonists to settle in a system and start sub-
colonies of their own, they should have settled the entire
galaxy by now.

I don't buy the idea that intelligence is relatively recent because
secondary stars are new.  The primary stars must have gone supernova
back about 10 billion years ago (give or take a billion), so there
is plenty of time for intelligence to develop which could in
principle be *billions* of years ahead of us (the idea is that the
appropriate elements like carbon and oxygen were formed by those
supernovae).

Tipler's argument is fairly powerful, but it seems to me that there
are some weaknesses in it which may topple the entire structure:

	o  It appears that the major means for detecting intelligence
	   is radio emissions.  Considering the technology, it is
	   probable that any technological civilization knows about
	   radio waves;  however, this does not mean that they are
	   used for long-range communications.  They may be used
	   only for very short-range communications since broadcasting
	   an omnidirectional signal is expensive from an energy point
	   of view if the range is any significant distance (already,
	   unidirectional signals are used by much of the broadlast
	   industry on earth).  The radio spectrum is also a rather
	   scarce resource (there's only so much bandwidth, and no
	   amount of technology can get more), so it might be used
	   for short-range communications and things like lasers and
	   masers used for long-range (inter-stellar) communications.
	   This alone could probably account for the absence of signals.

	o  There are some anomolies which have been detected which may
	   be due to other intelligences (though that is not the only
	   explanation which has been advanced).  For example, there
	   have been objects detected which do not radiate in the
	   visible spectrum but which do radiate in the infra-red
	   spectrum.  This sounds suspiciously like the Dyson sphere
	   idea (surround a sun with a sphere to catch *all* of its
	   energy output).  I'm not saying that that is the most
	   probable explanation, just that this hypothesis cannot yet
	   be conclusively ruled out.

	o  It is also possible that an inter-species understanding
	   to allow societies to mature until they would be "enriched"
	   by contact rather than overwhelmed.  Thus, there could be
	   a concerted effort to avoid contact with developing worlds
	   or societies long before any technological intelligence has
	   developed there.

In other words, although the argument has a certain amount of force,
there are enough weaknesses in its initial assumptions that it is
rendered somewhat moot.  Given its initial assumptions however the
conclusion is practically inescapeable.

			Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University

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

Date: Saturday, 16 October 1982  18:15-EDT
From: RLL at SCRC-TENEX
To:   Space-request at MIT-MC
Cc:   SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #16
In-reply-to: The message of 16 Oct 1982  06:02-EDT from Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>



Please remove me from this mailing list.  Thankx.

-Rick

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

Date: Saturday, 16 October 1982  14:42-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To:   MINSKY at MIT-OZ
Cc:   webb at CMU-20C, space at MIT-MC
Subject: Alone

         THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF EXTRA-PLANETARY LIFE: IT IS AN
         UNPARDONABLE CRIME TO UNLEASH ANY SELF-REPRODUCING FORM,
         OUT OF CONTROL, INTO THE UNIVERSE.

    Presumably, anyone can figure this out, including Tipler.  The
    punishment is cultural sterilization, if you are caught doing this.
    So inteligent races will think twice about making fast-spreading
    self-reproducing forms.
I assume you mean that some inter-stellar government is responsible for
enforcing this law, not that it enforces itself.  It is a little hard to
imagine such a government existing and our not being aware of it,
especially since we will shortly have the capability for unleashing such
a form ourselves.  Presumably any government that has the capability of
cultural sterilization is not afraid of revealing itself to other
civilizations in the universe.  If there is no other intelligent life in
the universe, then the reason for your law disappears.

Jon

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

Date: Saturday, 16 October 1982  21:28-EDT
Sender: MINSKY at MIT-OZ
From: MINSKY at MIT-MC
To:   Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c at MIT-MC>
Cc:   space at MIT-MC
Subject: Alone
In-reply-to: The message of 16 Oct 1982  14:42-EDT from Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c at MIT-MC>

-------

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

Date: 16 Oct 1982 2154-EDT
From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ
Subject: Alone.
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: webb at CMU-20C, minsky at MIT-OZ


Well, I was partly joking.  I meant first that intelligent cultures
might think of reasons NOT to expand recklessly, and this would be why
we don't see a lot of Dyson spheres.

Among the reason for this possibility is that I believe intelligent
cultures might ALL choose to convert themselves to intelligent-machine
form as soon as that option is available.  The advantage is
immortality and immunity from biological suffering.  Then, it may turn
out that they will discover forms of memory-sharing in which the
proliferation of many individuals makes less sense tha it does to us.

Second, I didn't mean that there has to be a visible super-power in
the galaxy, in order that one might fear one's existence.  Any
sensible culture that has been invisible up to now must have thought
of Tipler's argument and wondered what happens to those who show
themselves.  Perhaps there is, they'll think, some more powerful
enforcer or predator.  So, I meant, maybe they're all waiting to be
sure it's safe.

I don't mean that I'm not disturbed by the argument, either.  By the
standards of our own human behavior, you'd certainly expect anyone who
was able to would think about arranging all the nearby stars into
prominent dodecahedra or whatever they thought was pretty.  All I'm
saying is that the super-intelligent might think a little longer.  We
can't outguess them, of course, since they're smarter.  I'm only
suggesting that even at our level, there might be some conservative,
military-type reasons to be careful.

Another argument goes like this, by the way: once you reach OUR level,
it is a mere thousand years before you (i) convert yourself to
abstract digital form and (ii) understand all of physics.  What
happens then?  Well, we can't say.  But it seems likely that (i) you
would leave ordinary expanded-matter stars and move to condensed
places like neutron stars in which you can computer things 10**12
times faster.  Perhaps Dr. Forward could suggest other reasons.

Then, when you figure out what you want, perhaps you beam yourself
into a black hole where things are (according to your new theory) even
better.

Well, that's all whistling in the dark, of course.  I agree that there
is a puzzle about our not having seen signs of life, yet.  I also
think those evolutionary arguments are very, very weak - that is,
about the appearance of intelligence after life has started.  But I
don't think we should jump to conclusions yet.  If neutron stars are
the place for intelligence to go, for example, then their interstellar
messages would be emitted at much higher frequencies than we're
prepared to receive, since radio antennas would be impractical.
Perhaps they simply send carefully aimed neutrino beams to other
places dense enough to receive them easily..
-------

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

Date: Saturday, 16 October 1982  22:21-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To:   MINSKY at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
Cc:   webb at CMU-20C, space at MIT-MC
Subject: Alone.

Well, I agree that the evolutionary arguments are very weak.  Arguing
from a single example is extremely difficult.  But I think the argument
about the Von Neumann machines is strong.  Even if intelligent beings
reach a point where they don't interact with our universe any more, you
would expect them to go through a phase (perhaps only a few decades
long) where they could build self-reproducing machines, and they might
think it was a good idea -- after all, even if the race as a whole
didn't want to do it, within 100 years any reasonably large government
here will be able to do this.  So there would be a definite reminder
that the race existed.

And in any case, it's too late for us: we started announcing ourselves
20 years ago, when our sun became a radio star.  We might not be able to
detect such events now, but any sinister agency interested in finding
new civilizations could.  It seems to me that any growing civilization
must go through a phase when they are careless and leave evidence of
their existence all over the place.  They must reason: everyone who is
really interested already knows about us, why not build a
self-reproducing machine on the assumption that there is no one else out
there?

Jon

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

Date: 15 Oct 82 14:40:49-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!duke!unc!tim at Ucb-C70
Subject: I doubt we're alone
Article-I.D.: unc.4097
Via:  Usenet; 17 Oct 82 0:39-PDT

Responding to recent points about the improbability of
other intelligent life having developed in the Universe:

(1) If the probability were as low as one in a billion
    (one planet out of every billion that develops life),
    we could still expect to see a lot of intelligent
    species, although sparsely distributed.

(2) The argument that we would have seen traces is invalid.
    How would we know what to look for? Perhaps Andromeda
    is artificial. Why do we assume that highly-developed
    species would change things around on a cosmic scale
    in any case? Finally, intelligent life is a fairly
    recent development, dependent on the formation of
    second-generation stars; possibly no one is very far
    ahead of us, at least not enough to have done anything
    observable given the speed of light barrier.

					Tim Maroney
					unc!tim or tim@unc

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

Date: 15 Oct 82 14:53:15-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!sher at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: We are alone
Article-I.D.: rocheste.120
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3774
Via:  Usenet; 17 Oct 82 0:41-PDT

As far as I know evolution is not a predictive science.  This renders
any predictions made by evolutionary evidence instantly suspect.  Any
argument which tries to prove the unlikelyhood of any currently
existing object could only be based on apriori evidence (for this read
no evidence whatsoever).  However I am merely an interested layman so
can not give an expert opinion on a book (especially since I have not
read it) but it would have to be damn good to convince me with
arguments along those lines.  As far as our not detecting aliens (well
this issue has been adressed already but to reiterate) I would guess
that we could not detect ourselves from 4 lightyears  away (at minimum)
unless we knew what to look for.  As far as detecting advance cultures
maybe they communicate with subspace radios and use warpdrive.

			-David Sher (almost completely unafraid to sign
					my name)

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

Date: 16 Oct 82 20:39:26-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!emil at Ucb-C70
Subject: We are not alone!
Article-I.D.: rocheste.121
In-Reply-To: Article pur-phy.517
Via:  Usenet; 17 Oct 82 0:56-PDT

Where do you think Spock came from?



					Live long and prosper  \\ ///
								\V//
								||||
					Emil Rainero


(P.S.  I typed this with just my right hand.)
(p.p.s My left millde finger is broken.)

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

Date: Sunday, 17 October 1982  12:00-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To:   John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ>
Cc:   webb at CMU-20C, space at MIT-MC
Subject: I don't think we're alone

Well, I think it would be better if you would address the arguments
presented by Tipler rather than just saying you don't believe them.  I
think we have a lot of evidence that there is no organized inter-stellar
civilization, for example.  Tipler presents a fairly convincing argument
that there has been no civilization with an intelligence slightly better
than ours anywhere in this galaxy up to about 300 million years ago.
What do you think of his argument?

Jon

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

Date: 16 Oct 82 5:01:48-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!deimos!houxi!ihps3!ixn5c!ihlpb!burris at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: We are alone - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ihlpb.3610508
Via:  Usenet; 17 Oct 82 20:36-PDT

#R:sri-unix:-380300:ihlpb:8600001:  0:353
ihlpb!burris    Oct 15 18:47:00 1982


The one thing I'm curious about is why we are led to believe that an
intellegent life form from another planet would have any desire to
communicate with a race bent on self-destruction.

If they were intellegent enough to get here from the required
distance they would very likely consider us barbarians.

	Dave Burris
	ihlpb!burris
	BTL - Naperville

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

Date: 17 Oct 82 16:53:46-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!stocker at Ucb-C70
Subject: what's the number?
Article-I.D.: pur-ee.593
Via:  Usenet; 18 Oct 82 0:27-PDT

a 900 number for listening in on the shuttle was mentioned here recently,
can someone enlighten those of us who don't know as to what it is?

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

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

19-Oct-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #18
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 18

Today's Topics:
			      ISEE 3 mission
			   Re: signs of life ?
	    "Pressures Are Increasing For Arms Race in Space"
			 Re: We are alone - (nf)
			     Re: We are alone
			Where did Spock come from?
			      Really Alone?
			   crime to unleash ...
			     RE: Are We Alone
			   Re: RE: Are We Alone
			 Re: crime to unleash ...
			    Re: Are we alone?
				  Alone.
	       I got them flying saucer blues again, momma
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  18 October 1982 09:29 edt
From:  CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  ISEE 3 mission
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

ISEE 3 has been parked out beyond Earth's magnetic field far enough to
be past the bow wave caused by solar particles hitting our magnetic
field.  It's my understanding that the balance of it's mission was to go
to the other side of Earth (i.e. the night side) and hang out there for
a while taking measurements in the "tail" of our magnetic field.  It's
this part of the mission that will be lost.  Too bad, but if I had had a
vote, I would have chosen the look at a comet.

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

Date: 18 Oct 1982 0756-PDT
Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL
Subject: Re: signs of life ?
From: BILLW at SRI-KL

    "By the standards of our own human behavior, you'd certainly
    expect anyone who was able to would think about arranging
    all the nearby stars into prominent dodecahedra or whatever
    they thought was pretty."

Oh I don't know,  The pattern is complex, probably 6 dimentional,
and beyond human understanding, but \I/ think the stars look
pretty just the way they are.  (All of them, and a civilization
capable of doing that probably is as aware of us as we are of
plankton).

BillW

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

Date:    18-Oct-82 7:05PM-EDT (Mon)
From:    B.J. Herbison <Herbison at YALE>
Subject: "Pressures Are Increasing For Arms Race in Space"
To:      Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

From the NYT, 18-Oct-1982, p. A1, col 1

           "Pressures Are Increasing For Arms Race in Space"
                          By Philip M. Boffey
                     Special to The New York Times

        Washington, Oct 17 - Edward Teller, the nuclear physicist widely
    credited with inventing the hydrogen bomb, visited President Reagan
    at the White House recently to give him an idea for another
    revolutionary weapon.

        The device might be stationed in space or launched at a moment's
    notice.  Its core would be a small nuclear bomb and its power would
    be delivered by lasers.

        If the Soviet Union ever launched a mass missile attack against
    the United States, tracking instruments would point the lasers
    at the missiles, the nuclear bomb would explode, the radiation
    generated by the bomb would activate the lasers, and lethal light
    beams would flash toward the earth.  Instantaneously, these beams
    would destroy vast numbers of the missiles in flight.

                        Many Uses of Satellites

        Space technology scientists are not certain whether such a
    weapon could actually be made to work.  But the fact that its
    possibilities are being discussed seriously by one of Mr. Reagan's
    most eminent scientific advisers illustrates the pressures that
    are building for an arms race in space.

or something else... There was more to the article but I couldn't get
beyond that point.
                                        B.J.
                                        Herbison-BJ@Yale
                                        decvax!yale-comix!herbison-bj
-------

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

Date: 17 Oct 82 18:27:33-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!sher at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: We are alone - (nf)

I don't know about you but I (a member of this race) am not bent on
self destruction.  Any race that can not benifit from dialog with
another race probably deserves the name barbarian.

			-David Sher (actually signing my real name)

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

Date: 18 Oct 82 8:54:31-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxi!fenk at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: We are alone

Interesting logic based on at least one large assumption. Why would we
want to send self replicating machines throughout the galaxy? If NASA
proposed that as a future project I doubt very much that they would 
receive funding for it.

                                             John Fenk
                                             (houxi!fenk)

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

Date: 18 Oct 1982 1625-EDT
From: Steve Strassmann <STRAZ at MIT-OZ>
Subject: Where did Spock come from?
To: space at MIT-OZ

Where else? Southern California.         -Steve Strassmann

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

Date: 18 Oct 1982 2218-PDT
From: JTKIRK at UFP
Subject: Really Alone?
Sender: EXPERIMENTAL at USC-ISI
To: space at MIT-MC

Members of the United Federation which have assumed responsibilities for
the adminsitration of regions whose intelligent life-forms have not yet
attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that
the interests of the inhabitants of these regions are paramount, and
accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within
the system of interplanetary peace and security established by these
articles of federation, the well-being of the inhabitants of these
regions.

Article 73, Articles of Federation
Star Fleet Technical Order TO:00:01:12

James T. Kirk at United Federation of Planets

----------

Sorry guys, but with Minsky's version of the prime directive and the
resultant dialogue (and especially Rainero's "Where do you think
Spock came from?") I just couldn't resist.

Really,
Dennis (DLENAHAN at ISIE)

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

Date: 18 Oct 82 15:20:20-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxi!houxj!wapd at Ucb-C70
Subject: crime to unleash ...

	In response to the article stating that it is a crime to
unleash a self-reproducing, out-of-control being into the universe :

	Doesn't the human race fit that description ?

						Bill Dietrich
						houxj!wapd

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

Date: 18 Oct 82 9:30:21-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: RE: Are We Alone
Article-I.D.: inuxc.464
Via:  Usenet; 18 Oct 82 22:46-PDT

	The recent arguments for mankind being alone in galaxy
are just that, powerful arguments not facts. However they do give
us a great deal to think about. Is the galaxy just jammed packed
with intelligent life forms? If so why haven't we seen any evidence?

	I personally don't by the old argument that an "intelligent"
life form would not loose self replicating forces in the galaxy, 
or that they would not interfere with an underdeveloped species.
Many people on this net have been equating intelligence with
morality and that is a very dangerous assumption. If the universe
is brimming over with life and if it has a large amount of intelligent
life I would expect the intelligent forms to show a broad spectrum
of morals. Some would be very concerned about all life forms  others
would only be concerned about there own species. As is with our star
I would think we would find that our concepts of morality occupy
the middle ground, not particularly good and certainly not spectacularly
evil either.

					Fred  BTL Indy

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

Date: 18 Oct 82 12:12:33-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: RE: Are We Alone
Article-I.D.: inuxd.185
In-Reply-To: Article inuxc.464
Via:  Usenet; 18 Oct 82 23:46-PDT

Since we have little data to determine whether life of any kind exists
Out There, most of the foregoing discussion is premature.  In any case,
it is worse than meaningless to speculate upon the motivations
of alien races.  We have no bases for comparison, and certainly no
means of ascertaining evil or good intent among other races.

On our own planet, for example, can anyone give good reason for the
self-destructive communist regimes, in which 90%+ of the people suffer
so that the 10% or so can live almost as good as the average American?
This is outrageous, but to us a commonplace.

As I tried to point out to other speculators this last summer, the alien
in ET is no nearer human than the alien in The Thing.  Certainly, each
is a representative of another evolution, and each behaves according to
its nature.  The human view of each species is simply prejudiced.  I'm
certain that The Thing has its interesting points, too.  Any creature that
can build a flying saucer can't be all bad, huh?

Let's not ever forget that technological advancement does not mean
maturity.  the two worst regimes that have ever disgraced this planet
--allies, too, by the way, until one turned on the other--were right
up there in technology in certain areas:  Nazi Germany and Red Russia.
And I see that the Chinese Reds launched an ICBM from a sub...

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

Date: 18 Oct 82 17:55:31-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: crime to unleash ...
Article-I.D.: eagle.558
In-Reply-To: Article houxj.143
Via:  Usenet; 19 Oct 82 0:36-PDT

One could argue that netnews articles consitute self-replicating
machines, unleashed into the universe...

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

Date: 18 Oct 82 18:55:46-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Are we alone?
Article-I.D.: duke.2649
Via:  Usenet; 19 Oct 82 1:48-PDT

From:	Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University
Re:	Are we alone?

Well, it's at least possible that there is an inter-stellar federation
which steps on those civilizations which make pests of themselves by
creating self-replicating forms or whatever.  This need not be anything
more than simple self-interest - if they let it go on long enough, they
could be overwhelmed by all those numbers, even if their technology is
quite low (a man in the jungle could still lose an engagement with a
colony of army ants if he doesn't choose his place, time, and method of
confrontation -- or lack thereof -- properly).

I doubt very seriously that any extraterrestrial intelligence would
regard us as no more significant than plankton - though they might not
think us any more significant than ants (= social animal, capable under
most circumstances of no more than minor irritations, etc).  After all
as someone said, we are ants with a decidedly nasty sting (=nuclear war).
That doesn't mean that the outcome would be in doubt - it would simply
be a question of using the right pesticide.

There are a few questions though about Tipler's assumptions though - why
should we think that we could detect a self-replicating form anyway?  If
the purpose of the robots is to gather information (the only other possible
explanation I can think of is to expand the sphere of influence of the
society which seems rather pointless - why should we care what happens in
Andromeda?), then they would probably communicate with extremely low-
dispersion signals like lasers or masers or possibly something which
we don't yet know about - the energetics of omnidirectional broadcast
over interstellar distances are simply wrong.

As for expansion, unless they plan colonization, there does not seem
to be any particularly interesting reason for expanding indefinitely.
But colonization of a star system may not be the best place to look -
for a sufficiently advanced technology perhaps a neutron star or a
black hole would be a sufficient energy source, or perhaps they have
gotten to the point of direct conversion of matter to energy and can
dispense with such archaic concepts as stars.

As for the detection of radio signals, I doubt that our signals are
very decipherable even out only a few light-years unless you know
exactly what you're looking for.  There is probably only a relatively
narrow band of time during a civilization during which omnidirectional
broadcast is used at any significant level of power (we are rapidly
moving away from it ourselves), and the signals would be so weak by
the time they got here (& probably their television wouldn't be in
standard video!) that you would have to use a directional antenna
with extremely high resolution in order to find them.  Our stage is
probably quite transient - civilizations probably either destroy
themselves at about this point (look at us), or pass through it and
don't use such primitive broadcast technologies.

Tipler's argument is interesting and makes some good points, but I
still maintain that at our current level of knowledge it is rendered
rather moot.

			Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University

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

Date: 19 October 1982 04:52-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Alone.
To: Webb at CMU-20C
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, MINSKY at MIT-OZ

Here's one of my guesses:
Webb's statement that each civilization does the same as we did,
sending out radio waves indiscriminately when we first become
technological, is true. Every developing civilization makes the same
MISTAKE we've already made.
There's an advanced civilization that wants to survive, so it stamps
out any other civilization it finds that might threaten it.
They have an outpost about 50 lightyears from here.
In 30 years our early radio signals will reach them.
In 80 years they'll stamp us out.

Have fun. Sweet dreams tonite.

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

Date: 18 Oct 82 15:49:46-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: UNKNOWN.G.asa at Ucb-C70
Subject: I got them flying saucer blues again, momma
Article-I.D.: populi.403
Via:  Usenet; 19 Oct 82 1:56-PDT

     As far as I know, there is little evidence to prove that intelligence
per se gives any species an evolutionary superiority.  Of course, I'd
like to believe that it does, but the PROOF seems sadly lacking.
"Man" as a species has not been around long enough for the final
decision to be made.

     The first question of our Intergalactic IQ Test has been posed:
will we learn to solve our intra-species differences peacefully, or will we
reduce our civilization to radioactive rubble?

     I can't imagine anything stupider than unleashing hordes of
"self-reproducing robots" upon the universe.  (Remember the "Nomad"
episode in "Star Trek"?)

     "I should add that you must remember that all members of
     advanced civilizations are immortal.  Everyone seems to
     forget this."

     I doubt that we know it in the first place, and I sort of resent
being instructed to "remember" mere speculation as some sort of "fact"
that I should not have "forgotten." (Net.space is beginning to sound
more and more like sf-lovers.) I suspect that "immortality"
(definition, anyone?) has about the same chance of discovery that
perpetual motion has, but even granting the possibility, immortality
will certainly pose as many problems for a species as it solves.

     It seems to me that a prudent strategy to adopt in this rough-
and-tumble Universe would be to assume that the only Life that exists
is the species (either "intelligent" like us or merely "highly
successful" like insects and microorganisms) right here on Earth, and
that if we blow it here, there's not going to be any second chance.
And let's hope that the Guardians of the Universe (if guardians there
are), after reviewing, say, our last 5,000 years, don't just dismiss
us as some sort of virulent infection and autoclave this solar
system....

I'm changing my name to protect the innocent....

John Hevelin            ucbvax!G:asa

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

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

20-Oct-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #19
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 19

Today's Topics:
		      either way you look at it ...
			     Re: Are we alone
		      It's getting crowded out there
			I still think we're alone
			 Alone Again, Naturally.
			    Tipler's argument
		  October OASIS: "The Soviets in Space"
				  Alone
		    Infrared study of space shuttles.
				Re: Alone
			       We Are Alone
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 82 16:42:54-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: either way you look at it ...

As one wag put it:

If the universe is inhabited - what a scope for pain and folly!
If it isn't - what a waste of space!

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

Date: 18 Oct 82 23:09:27-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Are we alone

It's unlikely that there will ever be any rigorous proof that greater
intelligence always confers an evolutionary advantage.  For some types
of environments, there probably is not too much advantage to greater
intelligence;  for others, especially those which require a complex
response, there could be a premium placed on intelligence.  Evolution
is by no means a fixed, immutable process -- it is opportunistic and
unpredictable.

There are certainly risks to producing self-replicating forms which have
no built-in limiting factors - though this could presumably be done
without too much trouble for any civilization which was capable of
building something like that anyway.

Immortality of the members of an advanced civilization is certainly
speculation, but probably not any more unreasonable than the speculation
that they exist in the first place.  There are of course the questions
whether the alien biology is at all analogous to earth biology, and so
forth;  if so, there appears to be a reasonable chance that immortality
in the sense of no significant amount of aging would be acheivable  (this
appears to be possible with earth biology, given a few more decades).
Immortality of another type is also possible - by some form of shared
memory (a giant computer for example).  This is probably possible in
some form for any type of intelligent life.

It is probable in any event that even without physical immortality that
the members of a truly advanced civilization would have a far different
concept of time than we.  For us, the thought of what might happen in
1000 years is somewhat like science fiction;  this represents between
10% and 20% of the total amount of historic time.  For a race for which
this represented 1% or less of historic time, there would probably be
a much greater feeling of concern for what would happen in that amount
of time regardless of whether the members expected to live to see it.
Some modern planners have attempted to think in terms of decades to
1-2 centuries (never mind how successfully, the only point is that
they feel the need to be concerned with this span of time);  it seems
not unreasonable that civilizations, like people, think of time past
in terms of fractions of their total cumulative span.

I'm not 100% certain that this belongs on net.space, but it certainly
doesn't belong in sf-lovers;  the latter deals with things which are
*known* to be fiction.  If this topic offends people, maybe it should
be moved to net.misc or a subgroup of net.space so that it can die a
quick death like everything which gets moved there does ...

			Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University

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

Date: 19 Oct 1982 1004-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO
Subject: It's getting crowded out there

Self-replicating machines may not have devoured the galaxy for
the same reason that bacteria have not devoured the earth; because
there are other machines out there that eat them.  Just as you have
plant robots that eat asteroids you could have animal robots that eat
the plants.  One could imagine a whole ecology of robots out there
preying on one another.  First the lichen 'bots spread a net of silicon
solar cells over the surface of the planet.  Then the moss 'bots come along
with their tracking collectors.  Aluminum earthworms burrow under the
surface looking for those tasty dopant elements.  Mechanical trees
lift their collectors off the ground, out of the way of herbivores
(mechivores?).  Their roots break up the rocky soil so that auto-ants
can drag it away.... well, come to think of it, why is the asteroid
belt so finely ground up?
     Actually, it's too early to be sure that there aren't large-scale
manifestations of intelligence out there.  Someone could be flashing
a galaxy in Morse code at us, but there are hundreds of millions of galaxies
and only perhaps a thousand professional astronomers in the US.  The
radio searches have only looked at a few stars for a short time at
a few wavelengths.  We can put an upper bound on the power-distance of
any signals (Alpha Centauri does not seem to be blinking), but it's
still pretty coarse.

John Redford

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

Date: Tuesday, 19 October 1982  11:49-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To:   Space at MIT-MC
Subject: I still think we're alone
Cc:   webb at CMU-20C

It seems to me the simplest explanation consistent with the available
evidence is that there is no other intelligent civilization in the
galaxy.  Of course we can propose that there are such civilizations, but
we don't see them for various reasons, but that's not scientific, it's
based on an emotional response.  (Anything can be explained in many
ways, but in science we try to choose the simplest way).  Tipler's
argument shows that the distances between stars impose no barrier to
intelligent civlizations being aware of each other.  Given that, and the
fact that we observe no evidence of other intelligent civilizations, we
must conclude that there are no other intelligent civilizations in the
galaxy.

Jon

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

Date: 19-Oct-82  9:30:45 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Suk at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Alone Again, Naturally.
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

"There's an advanced civilization that wants to survive, so it stamps
out any other civilization it finds that might threaten it."

Not necessary -- we'll do it ourselves.  Just before we "unleash our
self-replicating robots" on the universe, we destroy ourselves (and
our s-r robots) through some nuclear miscalculation.

(Twenty billion years later, some fish wriggles up onto dry land out
of a swamp on some obscure planet in some far distant galaxy....)

Stan

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

Date: 19 Oct 1982 8:53-PDT
From: dietz at usc-cse
Subject: Tipler's argument
To: space@mit-mc

Tipler's argument clearly won't tell you much if you don't make
assumptions about the motivations of the aliens.  But this is precisely
what the SETI crowd does -- they assume that the aliens will want to
talk with one another by long-range radio signals.  Therefore, they
say, we should listen for these signals and join the galactic club.
Tipler is just pointing out that IF you wanted to contact infant
cultures like ours it would make a lot more sense to build
self-reproducing machines.

I reject the argument that it is dangerous to unleash a selfreproducing
machine.  These will be artificial life froms, remember, and won't have
to be able to mutate to meet drastically changed conditions.  Put in
enough error correcting codes, check sums, etc. and you won't have to
worry about program errors causing unlimited reproduction or hostile
behaviour.  All this assumes that there are no design errors, but that
doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve.
 

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

Date: 19-Oct-82 15:32:42 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Hamilton.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: October OASIS: "The Soviets in Space"
To: Space @ MC
cc: Hamilton.es

LOS ANGELES SPACEFANZ:

OASIS (Southern California L-5 Society) general meeting is Saturday 23
October 7 pm at The Aerospace Corp, Bldg A-1, on El Segundo Blvd. just
west of Aviation (about a half a mile west of the San Diego Fwy).

TOPIC: "The Soviets in Space", featuring an hour-long film on the Soviet
space program, including footage shot on board the Salyut 6 space station.
Also to be shown: some NASA short subjects.

--Bruce

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

Date: 19 Oct 82 10:12:17-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!bukys at Ucb-C70
Subject: Alone
Article-I.D.: rocheste.125
Via:  Usenet; 19 Oct 82 19:27-PDT

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the argument that we've only
been capable of detecting anything "out there" for a cosmologically/
historically insignificant amount of time.  So I'll mention it.
Anybody remember the "technology is to a dime as history is to the
Empire State Building" illustration?  (Don't answer, this is
rhetorical.)  It seems to me this is one of the first arguments you
hear from Saganites on this subject.

Liudvikas Bukys

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

Date: 19 Oct 82 11:45:45-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70
Subject: Infrared study of space shuttles.
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2538
Via:  Usenet; 19 Oct 82 20:27-PDT

	NASA is now using computer assisted infrared heat detection systems to
	take a better look at the heat distribution on the shuttles on re-
	entry. This technique allows engineers to see where the most critical
	'hot spots' on the shuttle occur, how efficiently the tiles are
	operating, and wether any changes, esp. of aerodynamic or thermodynamic
	design of the shuttle are needed. No doubt a lot can be learned from
	these studies to improve the efficiency of operation of shuttles, and
	perhaps even reduce maintainance costs.

		R.S.

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

Date: 19 Oct 82 8:00:55-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!claus at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Alone
Article-I.D.: inuxa.148
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3844
Via:  Usenet; 19 Oct 82 20:46-PDT

	A self-reproducing machine could always be programmed to
scan each solar system for life and if it finds life, leave that
solar system alone and go on to the next.  A machine such as this
could already have come through our solar system years ago and
decided to leave us alone. What is wrong with such a machine if
it leaves existing life alone? Such a machine could also have a
lot of other built in 'moral' features.

						D. M. Claus
						BTL/Indy

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

Date: 19 Oct 82 14:54:10-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!stan at Ucb-C70
Subject: We Are Alone
Article-I.D.: floyd.701
Via:  Usenet; 20 Oct 82 1:46-PDT

With all this talk about "we are alone" and "self-reproduction", this
discussion ought to be moved to net.singles.

					   @
				  Stan	 <-+->	 King  
					   |
					 _/ \_
				     (floyd!stan)

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

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

21-Oct-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #20
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 20

Today's Topics:
			  Im alone, Youre alone
		      galactic civilization density
		 Re: either way you look at it ... - (nf)
			     Mutant Machines
		       Re I still think we're alone
			   Ain't logic fun??  
		       How can we SAY we're alone?
		    Comment on Space Digest theorizing
			I still think we're alone
			    Tipler's argument
			     Re: We are alone
				  Alone?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 82 19:55:28-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!sii!mem at Ucb-C70
Subject: Im alone, Youre alone

I think I'm alone.  You folks, as a figment of my imagination, are
spending entirely too much effort on the subject.

M Mallett

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

Date: 19 Oct 82 16:29:47-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!deimos!orion!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: galactic civilization density

It is possible to be quantitative even on the basis of null evidence.
This is done routinely when upper limits are set to the rest mass
of neutrinos and the half life of protons. In this spirit, we might
ask "What is the upper limit on the civilization density in the galaxy
given that there are none around the nearest (say) 10,000 stars?"
We can answer this quickly by noting that a probability of 1/10,000
of finding a civilization around a given star gives a probability of
1/e of NOT finding one around any given 10,000 stars. This still leaves
plenty of room for speculation, considering that there are ~1e11 stars
in our galaxy. Our upper bound on the total number of civilizations
in the galaxy then becomes 1e7.

As for the proliferation argument, I think this severely understates
the difficulties posed by the galactic distance scale. One has to
work hard to even begin to appreciate it. The other galaxies might
as well be separate universes, for all the hope technology has of
communicating between them, let alone colonizing them.

Roll your eyes back and GROK!

Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Date: 19 Oct 82 18:01:57-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!jon (Jon Brewster) at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: either way you look at it ... - (nf)

As another 'wag' put it:

                 "Either we are alone...
                              ... or we are not.

                  Each way is mind boggling ."

(badly paraphrased from wherever I read it)

                                             Jon Brewster
                                             ucb!hplabs!hp-pcd!jon

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

Date:    20-Oct-82 11:32AM-EDT (Wed)
From:    David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: Mutant Machines
To:      Space at MIT-MC

        ...Just install check sums and error correcting codes
        and you will eliminate the chance of mutation and the
        machines running amuck...

I've got news for you, DNA has more backup and error correction mechanisms
than have ever been put into any robot, and look what happens to a strand
of DNA after a couple of million years, even under a very protective
atmosphere. Imagine what would happen to any memory system you care
to think about after a similar interval in deep space. The likelihood
of mutation seems pretty good to me, and for some interesting speculation
on what might happen consult your local SF lover.
                                        -Dave

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

Date: 20 Oct 1982 12:38:02-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: webb at cmu-20c
Subject: Re I still think we're alone
Cc: space at mit-mc

   It may be reasonable to conclude that Tipler's argument "shows that the
distances between stars impose no barrier to intelligent civilizations' being
aware of each other"; however, it also shows that he can't step outside of his
primitive anthropomorphism and suppose that another intelligent race would
differ from us enough not to want to spread through the galaxy like a disease.
   As long as we're considering alien intelligences it is worthwhile to weigh
all of the speculations in SF, since many authors show more ability to think
with a wider perspective than Tipler (at least as he's been represented here;
I haven't read any of the material summarized by others in this digest). For
a sampler, consider that most races would devote themselves solely to
communications, as shown in SONGS FROM THE STARS (Spinrad---otherwise a
thoroughly obnoxious book).
   So far, we have much evidence that expansive urges are ultimately self-
destructive (although the alternatives aren't much fun either---consider
dynastic Egypt or China). To assume that we can project the development of
aliens past our own level (in view of the dreadful record of such predictions
attempted on our own society) or even guess at their motivations is a
peculiarly monstrous egotism.

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

Date: 20 Oct 1982 1017-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Ain't logic fun??  
To:   space at MIT-MC, webb at CMU-20C

	Date: Tuesday, 19 October 1982  11:49-EDT
	From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
	Subject: I still think we're alone

	It seems to me the simplest explanation consistent with the available
	evidence is that there is no other intelligent civilization in the
	galaxy.  Of course we can propose that there are such civilizations, but
	we don't see them for various reasons, but that's not scientific, it's
	based on an emotional response.  (Anything can be explained in many
	ways, but in science we try to choose the simplest way).  Tipler's
	argument shows that the distances between stars impose no barrier to
	intelligent civlizations being aware of each other.  Given that, and the
	fact that we observe no evidence of other intelligent civilizations, we
	must conclude that there are no other intelligent civilizations in the
	galaxy.

It seems to me that scientific method would lead us to to the following
conclusions about other civilizations:

	1) We have seen only one example of intelligence (ourselves).

	2) We have studied only one solar system containing a habitable
	planet for Life-As-We-Know-It.

	3) Study of subcultures within our own civilization show us
	that our estimation of why other cultures do things is 
	usually wrong.

	4) We have looked for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence
	for a very short time and in a very limited portion of the
	sky.

Therefore:

	We really don't know, and we can't know until we get more
	data.

					Cheers, --Tom

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

Date: 20 Oct 1982 1307-CDT
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.Slocum at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: How can we SAY we're alone?
To: space at MIT-MC

Statements like "We haven't seen them, so the simplest [hence most
preferred] hypothesis is that they don't exist" fall to the simple
observation that we haven't LOOKED to any significant extent.  Not
only have we not looked very long in an historical sense, we haven't
even looked very hard with what time and instruments we have available.

Deer don't look up into trees, but that doesn't mean there aren't any
lions up there.

The "scientific method" does not allow us to draw ANY conclusions
based on no evidence, which is what we've got now.  Mountain lions
would appreciate the fact that deer aren't scientifically oriented.
We humans claim to be scientific; mostly, we're not.

As to whether we SHOULD look or not, that's another issue.  I'm in
favor of it, just out of sheer curiosity.  This doesn't imply that I
know HOW to look, though.

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

Date: 20 Oct 1982 13:11 PDT
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Comment on Space Digest theorizing
To: space at Mit-Mc
cc: Wedekind.es

I enjoy and value the speculative discussions by members of this
digest much more than the strictly reportorial (?) ones, and don't
buy the "leave it to the experts" approach to things in general. 
At the same time recent discussions made me think that mixing a
little humility with our audacity wouldn't hurt.  It
might be worthwhile deciding how much you agree with this
(hopefully not misremembered) paraphrase from B. Russel:

	1) Where the experts are agreed the opposite opinion should
	not be held to be certain.

	2) Where the experts disagree a lay person should not hold
	any opinion to be certain.

	3) Where the experts agree that there is no basis for a
	conclusion the lay person would be wise to withhold
	judgement.

	I know that some of us ARE the experts, and in any case I
can think of few groups of people that need this reminder less, but
it seems like something worth thinking about.  Now, back to the
theorizing!

					Jerry

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

Date: 20 October 1982 19:31-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: I still think we're alone
To: Webb at CMU-20C
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I go along with Webb's argument as most likely.
Intelligence the level of Humans/Apes, Dolphins/Whales, Octipusses,
Insect colonies seem to evolve rather commonly. Technology the level
of Humans has evolved (we know) at least once, but we have no idea
whether it evolved elsewhere. Space technology like we envision seems
not to have evolved yet anywhere in this galaxy nor in nearby
galaxies, although it may have evolved in Seifert galaxies or in
random distant places. In any case, space technology seems to be rare.
We know of not one instance of it yet, and it seems not to have taken
hold of nearby galaxies yet.

Somewhere on the road from Whale/Insect/Octipus/Ape level intelligence
to advanced space technology, most species either die out or simply
don't make further progress for billios of years. I have two major theories:

(1) The road from intelligence to technology is difficult. We are likely
the very first in this galaxy to make it.

(2) The road from technology to advanced space technology is
difficult. Nobody in this galaxy has made it yet, those who got as far
as we have now have all died out (nuclear or biological war?) or gone
into declaine (Reagan&Stockman). The latter is unlikely since Japanese
et al are taking upthe slack, and I would imagine such alternatives
would exist on other planets where technological civilization evolved.
This option thus reduces to "most technological civilizations commit
nuclear or biological suicide before achieving advanced space technology".

I see no way to distinguish between these two cases without going out
to explore the galaxy, looking on planets for (1) intelligent
lifeforms which haven't yet achieved technology, and (2) relics of
past technological civilizations which have suffered disasters such as
nuclear or biological war. Of course if we succeed in gathering that
evidence, it'll mean we have passed from Earth-based life to
space-based life, thus making the question moot except for scientific
curiosity and predictions of what we might meet in other galaxies,
since at that point we'll surely be the first in our galaxy to spread
to space where others have failed or haven't even gotten the idea to
try, and the question of whether we were the first to achieve
technology or the first to spread technology to space will be moot.

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

Date: 20 October 1982 19:40-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Tipler's argument
To: DIETZ@USC-CSE at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I categoricaly reject your claim that if one builds self-replicating
robots and sets them loose on the Universe, all of them carefully
programed and checksummed etc., that you'll inhibit mutation/evolution
in these creatures. If anything can go wrong it will! Haven't you
learned that? There's a cost associated with error-correcting codes.
So if some machine manages to turn off its error-correcting code via
something breaking (a bit switched, a JSR instruction changed to a NOP
by accident, whatever) it'll have a slight advantage in surviving. So
the population of non-error-protected machines will grow slightly. One
of them will suffer a more serious mutation, that offers a true
advantage, and suddenly a popuolation explosion of mutants will take
over the galaxy. I don't believe the pressure of evolution can be
stopped by a one-time careful design of a replicating form. *any*
replicating form set loose in a big enough environment will eventually
evolve. Even if you have police robots going around checking each
robot to verify correct operatin of checksum codes, there are enough
places to hide in the galaxy that evolution can escape detection long
enough to take over.
<opinion of REM>

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

Date: 20 Oct 82 15:29:10-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!woods at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: We are alone
Article-I.D.: hao.322
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3823
Via:  Usenet; 20 Oct 82 18:15-PDT

   Come on now! How could we be so conceited as to think that this puny little
rock off in the corner of the universe has the only intelligent life? WIth
the countless billions of stars and planets out there, probability favors
eveolution of intelligent life SOMEWHERE out there. It is clearly possible for
a much more intelligent race than ourselves to exist, and still not have the
necessary technology to send out detectable signals this FAR AWAY. 
~v
(Drat! I can't escape to vi!)
    Oh, well my typos have to stay, I'm too lazy to type it all over again!
It may be that they are indeed trying to contact us (or any other "intelligent"
race) but we are looking for the wrong thing. As someone already pointed out,
they would hardly use radio waves to bridge interstellar space! 
   It just seems highly unrealistic and self-centered to think that WE are the
most intelligent life in the universe. God help the universe if we are!
Anyway, I thought Galileo (or was it Cornelius?) showed the invalidity
of the geocentric theory of the universe.

               GREG (menlo70!hao!woods or hplabs!hao!woods)

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

Date: 20 Oct 82 10:22:22-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Alone?
Article-I.D.: inuxc.472
Via:  Usenet; 21 Oct 82 1:56-PDT

	Alone? Of course we are alone. Listen there are 
over 100 billion stars in our galaxy and over a billion 
galaxies in the known universe, yet in all of that there is
only one of each of us. That is what I call being alone.

				Fred

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

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

22-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #21
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 21

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Aloneness Together
			  Alone Again, Naturally
			     Re: is this it?
		       ET's and Simple Explanations
		self-replicating machine program mutation
			     Re: is this it?
			    Re:Mutant Machines
			  Re: Tipler"s argument
			   Astronomy questions
			      NOT Re: Alone
			     Halley's sighted
		     Re: Re I still think we"re alone
			   but are we looking??
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 82 19:15:21-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!uniq!mike at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Aloneness Together
Article-I.D.: uniq.110
In-Reply-To: Article hp-pcd.378
Via:  Usenet; 21 Oct 82 2:57-PDT

The whole issue is obvious...
All "intelligent" "civilizations" are alone together.
All the arguments that we see in these pages is based
on a very weak premise: 
   - that we are from an intelligent species.
I personally have no faith in our ability to construct
some sort of replicating device to "boldly go..."
without it changing or forgetting what it was meant to do.
Even with redundancy and checksums et al, I say no.
What about the "galactic environment"? (I hear it now:
"What about it?") Can we really present ourselves as
members of an intelligent species while we unloose a
mechanical disease that digs, scours, and eats whatever
it requires to fufill its purpose?  If we could put in
all the safeguards to respect all environments, then
we would already know everything that we're searching for.
Why does everyone assume that advanced "intelligences"
will have advanced technologies?  I don't think that's
necessary.  Perhaps it's a leftover from science
fiction.  Why am I beginning to sound like Andy Rooney?
Why would I care?
   Rockin' the boat,	Yers truly, 	Mike Hall

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

Date: 21 Oct 82 0:25:23-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!duke!unc!tim at Ucb-C70
Subject: Alone Again, Naturally
Article-I.D.: unc.4134
Via:  Usenet; 21 Oct 82 2:58-PDT

Something no one has explained to me yet is why
any culture would have any desire to build self-
propagating starships. What good does this do you?
How do you justify the expense?

As to the recent point about the assumption that
advanced intelligences have advanced technology:
one answer is boredom. If a culture develops tech-
nology in the first place, it is for comfort (I
assert); when maximum comfort is achieved, the
design of new machines or other technologies becomes
an art. Also, maintenance of comfort requires
technology as advanced as that which first brought
about the comfort. No machine can run forever without
maintenance. However, I agree that these technologies
are not neccessarily of the planet-moving type
that so many seem to expect to observe; I can
easily see a race being fairly satisfied with living
in a fairly small space, say a few planets.

Finally, I'd like to reiterate my earlier point:
There is no way for us to know if other intelligent
species exist or not. We don't know what to look for.
Observing ourselves tells us nothing about what
traits are universal to intelligence.

				Tim Maroney (unc!tim)

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

Date: 21 Oct 82 0:43:44-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: is this it?
Article-I.D.: duke.2664
In-Reply-To: Article sii.178
Via:  Usenet; 21 Oct 82 6:37-PDT

From:	Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University
Re:	Intelligence and mutations

Mark Mallett brings up the question of whether human intelligence (and
presumably alien intelligence as well) might not have stagnated.  This
has probably been true for the past 50,000 years or so (man has been able
to significantly modify his environment for something on this order of
time), since there probably hasn't been too much selection pressure
(in a relative sense) during that time.  But if our understanding of
things like the workings of the brain and artificial intelligence continue
at their present rate, we will before very long be able to directly
modify intelligence.  Selection and evolution arguments really don't
matter very much if the race can directly modify it the characteristic
under consideration.

As for DNA being "programmed" to mutate, this sounds suspicious.  The
differences between the DNA for humans and apes only has about 2% or
less different.  It is unclear that this 2% difference was caused by
any type of classical mutation (micromutation or macromutation), it is
probable that much of the difference is recombination.  Many people have
the impression that evolution proceeds by the selection of new mutations;
in reality, mutations are relatively rare, and most evolution proceeds by
the selection of new *combinations*.

Finally, I am far from convinced that it is really possible to design
an error correcting code which will be guaranteed to remain intact for
20,000,000,000 years (guess of remaining lifetime of the universe) for
all of 1e15 robots (give or take a few million) - unless the code is
so costly that the time to compute it is of cosmological scale.  Without
such a guarantee it is possible to imagine the mutations and selection
to take place in a manner not too unlike life on earth, which is exactly
what some of the other readers have been worried about.

			Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University

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

Date: 21 Oct 1982 10:19:59-EDT
From: mclean at NRL-CSS (John McLean)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: ET's and Simple Explanations



         It seems to me the simplest explanation consistent with 
         the available evidence is that there is no other intelligent
         civilization in the galaxy.

Two comments:

   (1)  The cannon of simplicity is notoriously difficult to apply.
        Although the simplest explanation as to why I don't see an
        elephant in front of me is that there is no elephant in front
        of me to see, the extra terrestial example is not so clear-cut.
        The simplicity of the "no elephant" explanation rests on the 
        fact that I do not have to go on to explain why there is no 
        elephant in front of me.  An advocate of extra terrestial life
        would want an explanation of why there is none, or similarly,
        why the earth is so special.  This leads to my second point.

   (2)  "Facts" do not exist in a vacuum.  It is folly to gain a small
        amount of simplicity in explaining X by greatly increasing
        the complexity of my explanation of Y (assuming that I want
        eventually to explain both).  The advocate of extra terrestial
        life wants to explain, not merely why we haven't seen any
        signs of such life, but also why the same circumstances that
        gave life to this planet shouldn't arise elsewhere with
        similar results.

john

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

Date: 21 Oct 1982 at 1009-CDT
From: kjm@UTEXAS-11
Subject: self-replicating machine program mutation
To: REM@MIT-mc
cc: space@mit-mc

How many computer programs do you know of or have written in which one
wrong instruction gives some inherent slight "advantage"? It seems to
me that program mutation is more a fast way to get inert or malfunctioning
pieces of junk rather than better robots.

		Ken Montgomery
-------

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

Date: 21 Oct 82 1:12:58-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: is this it?
Article-I.D.: duke.2665
Via:  Usenet; 21 Oct 82 3:48-PDT

References: sii.178
From:	Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University
Re:	Intelligence and mutations

Mark Mallett brings up the question of whether human intelligence (and
presumably alien intelligence as well) might not have stagnated.  This
has probably been true for the past 50,000 years or so (man has been able
to significantly modify his environment for something on this order of
time), since there probably hasn't been too much selection pressure
(in a relative sense) during that time.  But if our understanding of
things like the workings of the brain and artificial intelligence continue
at their present rate, we will before very long be able to directly
modify intelligence.  Selection and evolution arguments really don't
matter very much if the race can directly modify the characteristic
under consideration.

As for DNA being "programmed" to mutate, this sounds suspicious.  The
differences between the DNA for humans and apes only has about 2% or
less different.  It is unclear that this 2% difference was caused by
any type of classical mutation (micromutation or macromutation), it is
probable that much of the difference is recombination.  Many people have
the impression that evolution proceeds by the selection of new mutations;
in reality, mutations are relatively rare, and most evolution proceeds by
the selection of new *combinations*.

Finally, I am far from convinced that it is really possible to design
an error correcting code which will be guaranteed to remain intact for
20,000,000,000 years (guess of remaining lifetime of the universe) for
all of 1e15 robots (give or take a few million) - unless the code is
so costly that the time to compute it is of cosmological scale.  Without
such a guarantee it is possible to imagine the mutations and selection
to take place in a manner not too unlike life on earth, which is exactly
what some of the other readers have been worried about.

			Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University

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

Date: 20 Oct 82 22:39:40-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!duke!unc!mcnc!jnw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re:Mutant Machines
Article-I.D.: mcnc.1346
Via:  Usenet; 21 Oct 82 5:57-PDT

DNA may have a lot of backup and error correction, but it is programed to
mutate. Any DNA which wasn't able to mutate went into the bit bucket
long ago. If you want a machine to mutate you have to programe it to.
DNA is programed so that changes have a significant probability of making
sense.
                                      John White

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

Date: 21 Oct 82 8:23:47-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!claus at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Tipler"s argument
Article-I.D.: inuxa.152
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3914
Via:  Usenet; 21 Oct 82 18:47-PDT

	In regard to constructing self-replicating robots -
how can it be done??  It seems to me that to build such a robot
the most advanced technology must be used, but for that robot
to reproduce it must incompass all of that technology.  Some
examples of this are IC masking, steel production, material
refinement, etc.  If we could develope such a machine all of
our work would be done and we could just go along for the 'ride'.
I feel when we reach the point of being able to produce such
a machine we will have the ability to do far more productive
things and such a machine would ill never be built.

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

Date: 21 Oct 82 8:54:00-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Astronomy questions
Article-I.D.: inuxc.476
Via:  Usenet; 21 Oct 82 18:56-PDT

	All this talk about wild self reproducing robots brings
to mind old Battle Star Galatica stories. It is time to get back on
to more serious issues.

	1. Did anyone observe the Leonids last night? Indianapolis
		was clouded out.

	2. Friday night at about 2 UT the moon will pass in front
		of M-22

	3. What is happening with Columbia? 

			Fred BTL-IN

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

Date: 21 Oct 1982 2129-PDT
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: NOT Re: Alone
To: space at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

It's almost time to start leaving the alone topic alone.  To try
to start changing the subject, did y'all see on the TV news
that Palomar has a photo of Halley's Comet on its way in?
-------

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

Date: 22 October 1982 02:11-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Halley's sighted
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Acording to tonight's newspaper, astronomers from CalTech have sighted
Halley's Comet and it's right on track as predicted. They first saw it
last week thru the Palomar 200-inch telescope, then confirmed the
sighting this week.

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

Date: 21 Oct 82 15:07:55-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!swatt at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Re I still think we"re alone
Article-I.D.: ittvax.465
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3904
Via:  Usenet; 21 Oct 82 22:58-PDT

Well this has certainly been an interesting discussion.  I would like
to add several modest points.

  1)	The notion that greater technological capabilites also denotes
	vastly greater intelligence escapes me.  First, I doubt anyone
	can give an acceptable definition of intelligence, except
	that it is:

	  a)	A quality that one being possessing it recognizes in
		another.

	  b)	What the intelligence tests measure.
	
	I doubt on either scale intelligence per se has increased
	significantly since the days of the Wright brothers, or even
	since Archimedes (those Greeks were a SMART bunch ...).  I
	certainly wouldn't be too snobbish to sit down and talk with
	say, Newton, even though he might have nothing to say that I
	couldn't read in books.

	Thus the gap in technological and social sophistication between
	ourselves and the Greeks of Pericles' day could be closed in a
	generation at most.

  2)    Trying to prove that other civilizations do or don't exist
	reminds me of Hegel's philosophical proof that there could ONLY
	be 8 planets (an effort which has not endeared him to
	scientists).  If we find other life (or they find us) then we
	will know for sure; until then, it's all speculation.

  3)	Just because it's speculation doesn't mean it's pointless.
	There is, after all, a public policy issue here, which is how
	much money to spend on attempting to contact other
	civilizations.

		- Alan S. Watt

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

Date: 21 Oct 82 21:31:48-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!laura at Ucb-C70
Subject: but are we looking??
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2541
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3914
Via:  Usenet; 22 Oct 82 2:18-PDT

	I went to a Carl Sagan lecture at the University of Toronto (here)
about six months ago.  He was speaking on Looking for Extra-Terestrial 
civilisations and raised a number of good points among them:

	EM theory is a relatively recent development on this planet.
Given that we have only had such a small window of time in which we have
been announcing ourselves, is it any wonder that no one has bothered to
come check us out?? (except to two drunken farmers in....)

	Remember what radio noise they are going to be hearing from us:
McCarthy trials, Howdy-Doody....Hmmm I think that I might try someone
else first too given that tracking down Extra-Terrestrial civilisations
was my game...

	We havent looked all that hard!  A large orbital radio telescope
would help...but then that costs money which hasnt been put into space
development in recent times.  If money cannot be found to not turn
Pioneer off and monitor it now I dont see much hope for getting a large
telescope in the future...

	In fact, I like how Sagan presented our search for other civilisations.
He said that he had talked with a person (rather distinguished sort whose
name I cannot recall now, *DARN*) who said that he had conducted this
experiment.  He got up one morning and set his table for an elabourate
dinner for two.  Then he opened the front door and patiently waited. After
a whole day, no lobster had come in to eat dinner with him.  He concluded
that since there was no lobster eating dinner with him there was therefore
no such thing as a lobster......


					Laura Creighton
					decvax!utzoo!laura

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

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

23-Oct-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #22
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 22

Today's Topics:
			 Re: but are we looking??
	       re self-replicating machine program mutation
	       Alone Again, Naturally / stagnant societies
		 Re: either way you look at it ... - (nf)
			  Mutants are My Friends
			  Re: Tipler"s argument
		       ET's and Simple Explanations
		self-replicating machine program mutation
		     Re: Re I still think we"re alone
			     Re: is this it?
			   Re: Halley"s sighted
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 82 1:13:50-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!rabbit!ark at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: but are we looking??

I have heard it proposed that perhaps civilizations only use
radio for a short period -- until they have their planet so
thoroughly cabled that they can use land lines instead.

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

Date: 22 Oct 1982 11:09:16-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: kjm at utexas-11
Subject: re self-replicating machine program mutation

   This is true of most biological mutations; the theories describing means
of evolution all require a statistical population in which most mutations
are either trivial or failures, or else there is enough genetic variation in
the population as a whole that in a crisis one tail of the curve will survive
whatever wipes out the other tail and maybe the center as well. Given that
the programs would presumably be identical initially, the incidence of
constructive mutation should (I think) be small---but over the time frame
we're talking about, attempting to predict what would happen is foolish.

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

Date: 22 October 1982 11:43-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Alone Again, Naturally / stagnant societies
To: harpo!duke!unc!tim at UCB-C70

The claim that an advanced civilization might be content to inhabit a
few planets, is reminiscent of the early days of computers when
somebody estimated that 20 or maybe 25 computers (of IBM 704
technology) worldwide ought to satisfy all the uses we would ever find
for them. We just don't know at present all the uses we'll find for
planets and asteroids and stars etc. I suspect we'll always find a use
for more compute power and more materials&energy and more habitat-space.

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

Date: 22 Oct 82 2:45:57-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!watarts!geo at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: either way you look at it ... - (nf)

The original is a Pogo cartoon.

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

Date: Friday, 22 October 1982, 12:12-EDT
From: John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ>
Subject: Mutants are My Friends
To: space at MIT-MC

  From: kjm@UTEXAS-11:

  How many computer programs do you know of or have written in which one
  wrong instruction gives some inherent slight "advantage"? It seems to
  me that program mutation is more a fast way to get inert or malfunctioning
  pieces of junk rather than better robots.

This sounds like one of the creationist's arguments against evolution.
All it proves it that we aren't clever enough yet to make our programs
robust against random bit lossage. (But there are solutions -- and
evolution has "found" one.)

Also: the Darwin idea that changes can only be slight is becomming more
and more questionable as our understanding of the mechanisms of genetics
develops.  It is entirely possible that a single nucleotide change could
impart a great deal of selective advantage.  For example: skin (or fur
or scale or feather) color seems to be the result of the presence of one
or a few proteins.  The color of the protein depends on its shape and
the positions of associated non-peptide molecules.  >One< change in the
DNA could change the color of the protein, thus changing the color of
the whole organism.  In the case of albinism, this change is not for the
better, but it could be: perhaps the famous moths in England had
something like this happen to them.

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

Date: 22 October 1982 12:18-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Tipler"s argument
To: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!claus at UCB-C70

Your argument is reminiscent of the middle-age philosophers (who still
exist in certain churches) who argued that the maker must be greater
than the maken thus to avoid infinite ascent there must an absolute
maker which is God.

Just look at evidence. There are biological organisms in existance
which self-replicate, yet in no sense are they so advanced that
there's no road for progress. Most of them don't even understand
themselves. In fact not even humans understand their own biology
totally. Thus I don't think it's at all necessary for a
self-replicating robot to encompass all of technology. A
self-replicating robot merely has to have some way to self-replicate,
which implies some way to gather and use energy, and some way to move
around (perhaps by just drifting in a fluid the way dandelion seeds
drift in the wind). But I see no need whatsoever for them to contain
the latest technology, not to mention containing all known technology.
With millions of inventors all trying to make a self-replicating
robot, one of them might succeed half by accident (they all had
almost-self-replicating robots, but one was lucky and his design
really worked where the others failed). The one that succeeded, even
with many flaws, and with a design so serendipitous that nobody really
knew how/why the damned thing really worked, not even the inventor,
would spread through the galaxy, and evolve by natural selection.

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

Date: 22 October 1982 11:57-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: ET's and Simple Explanations
To: mclean at NRL-CSS

My explanation is rather simple and consistent:
 (1) The same forces that caused life on Earth, cause it everywhere
  else too, anyplace there's a long-lived star with planets containing
  lots of random elements from earlier supernovas and stellar-winds.
 (2) The same forces that drive us toward suicide hee on Earth, have
  driven technological civilizations towards suicide elsewhere.
 (3) The same forces that cause life on Earth to adapt to every nook
  and cranny in our biosphere, even places where we think no creature
  would want to live, occurs elsehere. Whenever the means to inhabit a
  biosphere exists, that biosphere will be totally inhabited to the
  limit of the energy materials and room available.
We don't see the Galaxy thriving with live at every bend in the road,
in particular we don't see it thriving around our neck of the woods,
so probably nobody has made it fully into space yet, although the
galaxy abounds with pre-space life.

Anything of the type "making A simple at the expense of making B very
complex" in that argument?

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

Date: 22 October 1982 12:04-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: self-replicating machine program mutation
To: kjm at UTEXAS-11

    Date: 21 Oct 1982 at 1009-CDT
    From: kjm@UTEXAS-11
    How many computer programs do you know of or have written in which one
    wrong instruction gives some inherent slight "advantage"? It seems to
    me that program mutation is more a fast way to get inert or malfunctioning
    pieces of junk rather than better robots.
The first time I read this I took it to be a rhetorical question, as
it was probably intended, but upon second reading I happened to
remember an actual case to point.

At SU-AI about ten years ago we were actively writing display hacks
for the III (Information International Incorporated) display
processor. Somebody wrote a program that was supposed to draw random
stars (points of light that apeared in random positions), and then
wink out later to be replaced by new random stars (there was a queue
of stars that initially grew until it was full, then stars were
recycled to new points in strict revolving order). The first time he
ran the program it had a bug, one instruction was wrong, instead of
drawing random points it drew random rays from the center of the
screen. It was a wonderful accident, much better than the original
idea.

I'm sure if people in this community think hard they can think of
other examples, though rare, of single wrong instructions being
improvements over the original conception. This would seem to be the
correct forum since we have a reason for considering this question
(who would have believed it?).

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

Date:    22-Oct-82 3:16PM-EDT (Fri)
From:    B.J. Herbison <Herbison at YALE>
Subject: Re: Re I still think we"re alone
To:      Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Cc:      decvax!ittvax!swatt at UCB-C70, Herbison at YALE

  1)    The notion that greater technological capabilites also denotes
        vastly greater intelligence escapes me.  First, I doubt anyone
        can give an acceptable definition of intelligence, except
        that it is:

          a)    A quality that one being possessing it recognizes in
                another.

A human being can usually recognize another.  If a spaceship landed
on Terra and an organic life form in a spacesuit came out and tried
to communicate with us, we could probably tell if it was intelligent.
If we try looking for intelligence, I can't assume we could always
recognize it.

          b)    What the intelligence tests measure.

Intelligence tests generally measure how well a human fits in western
society.  They work fairly well for educated White adults in our
culture, but would tell nothing for aliens.

This discussion is getting further and further away from what I expect
it to be (and I am guilty also).  Should it be moved to another mailing
list / newsgroup?
                                               B.J.
                                               Herbison-BJ@Yale
                                               decvax!yale-comix!herbison-bj

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

Date: 22 October 1982 20:52-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: is this it?
To: decvax!duke!bcw at UCB-C70

When we can directly modify intelligence, traditional biological
evolution by selection of DNA will mostly be replaced by evolution by
selection of ideas and programs and data. Good ideas such as
structured programming and atomic physics will grow and bifurcate and
develop further, while bad or useless ideas such as platonic ideals
and buggy whips will mostly die out. To some extent this has already
been happening. If and when we set loose self-replicating robots
throughout the galaxy, we'll see a new kind of evolution which will be
a combination of physical evolution of the robots and idea-evolution
of their programs. Of course if the programs are used to totally
control the physical design, it'll be analagous to DNA totally
controlling the design of biological creatures, complete with
sharing/exchanging of program fragments as we now know bacteria and
other lifeforms share/exchange DNA.
<Speculative prediction by REM>

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

Date: 22 Oct 82 8:59:49-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!nrf at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Halley"s sighted

Does anyone know when Halley's Comet will be within range of small (<20")
telescopes?

Neal Fildes
Bell Telephone Laboratores, Whippany, NJ

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

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

24-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #23
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 23

Today's Topics:
		  We may now be seeing them : net.space
			     SS ejector seats
			   To: Andrew Klossner
		 New Shuttle Booster Successfully Tested
			   Re: SS ejector seats
		  We may now be seeing them : net.space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 1982 0935-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a062  0610  22 Oct 82
PM-Space Search,420
Is Anybody Out There? Let's Find Out, Scientists Say
By WARREN E. LEARY
AP Science Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - An international group of scientists is urging
governments not to abandon efforts to communicate with other
civilizations in space, if any exist.
    Sixty-nine prominent scientists and academicians, in a letter
published today in Science magazine, said that humans have the
capacity to communicate through radio signals with civilizations
thousands of light years away.
    They called for a concerted, worldwide effort to locate possible
civilizations in outer space by listening for their radio signals.
    Several countries, including the United States, the Soviet Union and
Great Britain, have conducted limited radio searches in the past.
    Last October, an ambitious, six-year, $3.6 million U.S. search
effort ended due to budget cuts by the Reagan administration.
    The scientists and academicians, including several Nobel laureates,
said, ''We believe ... a coordinated search program is well justified
on its scientific merits.''
    Without such an effort, the decades-long debate over whether there
is other intelligent life is likely to remain unresolved, they said.
    The scientists, including astronomers, engineers, biologists,
physicians, philosophers, anthropologists and computer experts from
many countries, said they were divided on a number of questions
concerning whether other life exists in space.
    ''But we are unanimous in our conviction that the only significant
test of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence is an
experimental one,'' said the letter authored by Dr. Carl Sagan, the
astronomer and author from Cornell University.
    The Nobel laureates who endorsed the call include David Baltimore of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Francis Crick of the Salk
Institute and Linus Pauling of the Pauling Institute for Science and
Medicine.
    Among the signers were: Philip Morrison and Marvin L. Minsky of MIT;
A.G.W. Cameron, Edmond O. Wilson and Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard
University; Fred Hoyle, Cambridge University, England; Vitaly L.
Ginzburg, Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow; Roald Z. Sagdeev, Soviet
Academy of Sciences; Cyril Ponnamperuma, University of Maryland; Lee
A. DuBridge and Bruce Murray, California Institute of Technology; and
Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, president of Notre Dame University.
    The U.S. program that ended last year involved developing antennae
and computer programs to listen to the flood of radio information
coming from space and sort out what might be signals from other
worlds.
    
ap-ny-10-22 0857EDT
***************

n014  0751  22 Oct 82
BC-EXTRATERRESTRIAL
By WALTER SULLIVAN
c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - Sixty-eight leading scientists from a dozen nations,
including seven Nobel laureates, have joined in urging ''organization
of a coordinated, worldwide and systematic search for
extraterrestrial intelligence.''
    Despite theoretical arguments against the likelihood that
civilizations exist on other worlds, they say in a petition, ''the
only significant test is an experimental one.'' The results, whether
positive or negative, they add, ''would have profound implications
for our view of the universe and ourselves.''
    Following a surge of interest in the search for radio signals from
other worlds in the 1960s and '70s, skeptics began arguing that any
highly sophisticated civilizations would have made their existence
obvious by erecting beacons or sending exploratory missions to the
earth.
    Congress has specified that the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration devote none of its budget for the fiscal year1982 to
such a search.
    Left-over amounts, however, have been used to keep the project
alive, and the NASA budget for the fiscal year 1984, beginning in
October 1983, provides for developing radio astronomical techniques
to seek patterns generated by intelligent life.
    The sum to be allocated, according to a NASA spokesman, is about $1
million from a total budget of about $6 billion that was signed by
President Reagan last month.
    The money allocated will be used chiefly by two California research
centers working for NASA: the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field
and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. The goal is to develop
sophisticated electronic techniques that can be used by existing
radio telescopes.
    Signers of the petition say that new technologies make possible a
search ''a million times more thorough than all previous searches, by
all nations, put together'' for as little as a few million dollars
yearly for one or two decades.
    The argument that highly advanced beings would have made themselves
obvious, they say, assumes that such beings would behave in a manner
for which there is no precedent on the earth.
    ''The radio search, on the other hand,'' the statement continues,
''assumes nothing about other civilizations that has not transpired
in ours.''
    Signers of the appeal include such Nobel laureates as David
Baltimore, professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology; Melvin Calvin, professor of chemistry at the University
of California in Berkeley; Francis Crick, research professor at the
Salk Institute in San Diego, Calif., and Manfred Eigen of the Max
Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Gottingen, West Germany.
    Other Nobelists are Gerhard Herzberg, of the National Research
Council of Canada; Linus Pauling, formerly of the California
Institute of Technology, and Edward M. Purcell, a physicist at at
Harvard University.
    The appeal was organized by Carl Sagan, director of the Laboratory
for Planetary Studies at Cornell University, on behalf of the
Planetary Society. It will appear as a letter in the Oct. 29 issue of
the journal Science.
    end
    
nyt-10-22-82 1045edt
***************

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

Date: 23 October 1982 16:39-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: We may now be seeing them : net.space
To: UCBVAX.decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC, utzoo!laura at UCB-C70

Please specify which of my claims is silly. You seem to be saying the
same thing I'm saying, that planets around the galaxy are teeming with
life, and that intelligence develops everywhere. The only part you
seem to be disputing is that if life somewhere developed the
technology to move into space and miagrate to other stars, then after
a few billion years it should have occupied every nook and cranny of
habitable space in the galaxy, including our very own Solar System,
turning every star including our own into a Dyson sphere or better.

You cite the many South Pacific islands that weren't even visited
until WW-II. Well, 1492 to 1945 is less than 500 years. It takes about
that long for the population explosion to get to the point where there
are enough people to explore all land on Earth, and a little longer
to get to where not only all land but also all underseas locations are
inhabited (not just explored). I suspect in another 200 years the
Earth will be totaly saturated, every nook and cranny including 7
miles deep in the ocean and the poles and deserts and mountain tops.

Now let's assume some advanced civilization can achieve 0.5 C going
from one star to the next, say 8 light years away, so the trip takes
16 years. I figure it would take a well-prepared colony about 10 years
to get bootstrapped into using asteroids and solar energy to support
life and to process materials and build new collecting and processing
equipment. Then the population explosion can begin. Let's say due to
unlimited energy and resources, each family has 5 children, and a
generation is about 25 years. Let's say the initial colony is 1000
people. After 1 century, i.e. 100-(16+10)=74 years from end of
bootstraping, we have 120,000 people. After 1 more century we have 75
million people. After 1 more century we have 46E9 people, which is
enough to start sending out colonies to nearby stars. Thus every 300
years life expands 8 light years. The galaxy is about 25,000 light
years in radius, thus it takes about 25,000*(300/8)=937,000 years for
life developing space technology near the center of the galaxy to
spread throughout the entire galaxy. That's less than a million years.

They may miss a few stars, maybe the initial expansion hits only 10%
of the stars. But now there's no room left to expand, except by
carefully searching for new stars and missed stars nearby. Another
900 years and each little colony will have located all neighbors
within 8*3=24 light years and planted colonies there. This is still
less than a million years, and the galaxy is already totally cramped.

Now suppose such a population explosion started 8E9 years ago. Well,
7.999E9 years ago the Galaxy was already saturated. Probably they'd
find ways to consume stars faster, or they'd have galactic wars, or
who knows. I doubt we'd find our Solar System sitting here with most
of its hydrogen not yet burned and in fact looking rather virgin like
nobody has made use of it yet. Even if they somehow missed our tiny
star, I doubt we'd find the whole Galaxy full of hydrogen-burning
stars after all this time; rather we'd find ourselves in a burned out
galaxy, where virtually all the hydrogen has already been consumed.

Enough speculation. Let's go out there and find out what's living on
planets of neighboring stars. Let's succeed [at establishing
civilization in space] where they all failed, and go find out why they
all failed.

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

Date: 22 Oct 82 12:37:42-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxi!ijg at Ucb-C70
Subject: SS ejector seats
Article-I.D.: ihuxi.238
Via:  Usenet; 23 Oct 82 18:47-PDT


The question came up at lunch today about the ejection seats on the SS.
If the crew has to eject just after launch, what prevents (if anything)
them from ejecting into the ground?

i. j. gordon
ihuxi!ijg

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

Date: 22 Oct 82 9:26:02-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: To: Andrew Klossner
Article-I.D.: inuxc.482
Via:  Usenet; 23 Oct 82 23:17-PDT

	My apologies to the rest of the net. I really don't
understand how we can have a net which allows people to send mail 
to me but no matter how hard I try I can't return mail to these
same people.

	Your question is of course impossible to answer. The easiest
answer is that I know there is only one of me because I have no memory
of another. That statement can be blown out of the water from any 
number of philosophical points of view. I prefer the answer that I know
there is only one of me by the same reasoning that allows me to say
that there "is" at least one of me, and then run with it from there.

	How is the weather on Sirius IV these days Andrew?

				Fred 

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

Date: 22 Oct 82 16:54:02-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: New Shuttle Booster Successfully Tested
Article-I.D.: alice.997
Via:  Usenet; 23 Oct 82 23:47-PDT

A new, more powerful SRB has been successfully tested by Thiokol
Corp., its manufacturer.  Fastened horizontally to a platform,
it was test fired and shot a plume of smoke for several hundred
yards.  The new SRB will allow future shuttle flights to carry
3000 pounds more payload.  It is 150 feet long, 12 feet in
diameter, and packs 1.1 million pounds of solid fuel, burning
for 2 minutes.

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

Date: 22 Oct 82 16:55:50-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: SS ejector seats
Article-I.D.: alice.998
In-Reply-To: Article ihuxi.238
Via:  Usenet; 23 Oct 82 23:56-PDT

The ejection seats on the space shuttle were considered necessary
for test flights, but they have now been removed for actual
operation; i.e. NO ejection seats any more.

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

Date: 24 October 1982 05:09-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: We may now be seeing them : net.space
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC,
    UCBVAX.decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70, utzoo!laura at UCB-C70

I see nothing wrong with REM's analysis.  Assume he's off by a
factor of 100 and the question remains, Where Are They?  did
they all discover Zen and stay home?

We won't know until we go; but we can sure as hell learn what
population pressure is REALLY like if we stay here...

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

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

25-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #24
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 24

Today's Topics:
			 New Shuttle Booster...  
			     Money for SETI?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 1982 2132-PDT
From: Hon Wah Chin <HWC at S1-A>
Subject: New Shuttle Booster...  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Who cares about the length of smoke?  What's the thrust?

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

Date: 25 October 1982 03:39-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Money for SETI?
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

In Saturday's Peninsula Times-Tribune (formerly Palo Alto Times and
Redwood City Tribune) there's a nice column ("A personal view") by
Leonard Koppett, strongly advocating funds for SETI ($10/yr total,
i.e. a quarter cent/year worldwide, or 4 cents/yr if USA foots the
whole bill). He countered three major arguments against SETI funding:

Either-or, better things to spend the funds on? -- No, each bill is
judged on its merits, there's no either-or between spending funds on
SETI or on schools/hospitals.

Spend money on Earth, not in space? -- Space programs don't send money
to space, they spend it for personnel and resources on Earth just like
other programs. It just ends in another pocket, "to a computer
operator at NASA indtead of to a computer operator for some insurance
company".

Why waste money on research when there are practical things that need
doing? -- [I'll quote almost this entire paragraph.] "As we gain basic
scientific knowledge and experience, we develop potential
understanding of the mechanisms of the things that concern us most
directly: health, the manufacture of improved products for daily use
(and yes, weapons), the laws of physical nature. Biology and medicine
are not intimately involved with chemistry and subatomic physics, and
the new instruments, as well as the new theories, have made outer
space a laboratory for studying the particles and radiation on which
everything else is based. Deep-space astronomy has become a frontier
of nuclear physics. New knowledge is not 'wasted'."

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

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

26-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #25
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 25

Today's Topics:
		      Re: I still think we"re alone
	     Re: self-replicating machine program mut - (nf)
		   Mutations and intelligence in space.
		      Meta-SETI -- Truth and reality
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 82 22:32:04-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: I still think we"re alone

As much fun as it has been reading this interesting series of discussions,
I find it hard to believe that the subject of UFO close encounters has
been ignored.  Before you all jump onto me, read my series of UFO
classifications in THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF UFOS, edited by Ron Story
doubleday, 1980.  I interpret the evidence of these reports as evidence of
extraterrestrial visits.

As to the theories of whether we are alone, or whether we could be visited
by physical vehicles (as opposed to radio signals only)-- there are
hundreds ofreports of alien credatures of all types, sizes, and apparent
evolutionary tracks.

None of these reports contradicts any known "science"; and in factthe
reports from the 1950s indicate types of technologies that we only now can
recognize-- hardly the frauds and hoaxes most would have us believe.  So I
say--there may be some Netnews terminals in use right now by some who know
the answers to the raft of questions proposed.  And undoubtedly laughing
at some of the arrogant geocentric prejudices being expressed.

Not afraid to sign my name, but aware of the flak/flames to come.

--Arlan Andrews, Bell Labs, Indy...inuxd!aka779

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

Date: 23 Oct 82 5:26:23-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!barnes at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: self-replicating machine program mut - (nf)

	I always wondered how something like a robot improve its
programming by malfunctioning, but not now after taking CS 265 (a
digital logic lab.)  I would leave a gate here or there unconnected
or with the wire barely touching and the curcuit would work.  Then
I would realize my error and fix the connection, then the damn thing
wouldn't work wired properly.  I am a true believer that a logic
gate with no input 'knows' what state it should be in to give the
correct output (except, of course, when it becomes time to turn
in the project).

				uiucdcs!barnes

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

Date: 22 Oct 82 13:33:43-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70
Subject: Mutations and intelligence in space.

Re: mutations, I have not as much background of this field as i would like
to have, but anyhowm, is it not possible that the differences in people
are caused by some sort of mutations. Perhaps by many many generations of
interbreeding. ( physical differences ). This may or not be correct, but i
just thought that i would suggest it.

Re: intelligence...  It is almost inevitable that there are some sort of
intelligent life forms out there. But, as said we do not know how to look,
or where to look. And if other races developed to high tech. , there is no
reason that their developments should parrallel earths, so their ways of
thinking and communicating are probably quite different than ours. And if
are any races out there that can communicate in a similar fashion, they
might just not be interested in trying to contacte other races, or their
tech. may not be advanced enough. Perhaps the only way we will ever know
is to get out there on our own. For the time being that is not too
possible.

	(excuse the typos)

		R.S.

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

Date: 26 October 1982 02:16-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Meta-SETI -- Truth and reality
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

There's a terrific program showing on PBS currently (KQED this past
evening, KQEC next Saturday evening) that deals with truth and how to
learn it. A major discussion of this subject dosn't belong here, but
since it bears on the question of SETI ("Does intelligent life and
technological civilization exist elsewhere than on Earth?") I thought
I might mention it here. Mortimer Adler is simply brilliant. Applying
his view of reality and truth to SETI, we have something like:
Objective reality exists independent of our opinions, continues to
be the same regardless of whether our opinions are correct (correspond
to reality) or not, and would continue to be the same even if we
didn't even think about it at all, even if we all died out. Either
there is life elsewhere or there isn't. To discover this truth we must
collect evidence, conduct experiments, argue and debate, and check out
our reasoning ...

Has anybody else heard of Mortimer Adler or seen this program (one of
a series called "Six Great Ideas"; this episode on truth, next week's
episode on beauty) and want to discuss this for a while? (Reply to me,
REM at MIT-MC on Arpanet, not to SPACE.)

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

Date: 26 October 1982 04:07-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Oops, little errata, $10/yr should read $10E6/yr, in my message about
funds for SETI advocated by Leonard Koppett.

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

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

27-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #26
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:
	     Re: self-replicating machine program mut - (nf)
			     Money for SETI?
			 Columbia Countdown Query
		   Mutations and intelligence in space.
				Not alone
				Not alone
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 82 21:27:27-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: self-replicating machine program mut - (nf)

But biological mutation usually creates "junk", too. Its just that every so
often a success appears that is an improvement, while all of the thousands
of failures fade away do to their inferiority. Just because something is
rare doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

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

Date: Tuesday, 26 October 1982  18:15-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: Money for SETI?

Well, I really don't want to restart the Tipler discussion, but suppose
we detect no signals.  Then we really know very little about whether
there is intelligent life in the universe.  All we know is that if it is
out there, it is not noisy.  Wouldn't it be better to spend the money on
developing our own space expertise, in order to someday search for life
directly, or maybe spread our own life around?  There's only so much
money people will be willing to spend on space-related things nowadays.

Jon

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

Date: 26-Oct-82  9:57:54 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Suk at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Columbia Countdown Query
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Suk
Reply-To: Suk at PARC-MAXC

Can anyone tell me exactly when STS-5 is scheduled to land at Edwards AFB?
Also, do things appear to be on schedule at this point?  Thanx.

Stan Suk

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

Date: 26 October 1982 20:50-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Mutations and intelligence in space.
To: decvax!utzoo!miles at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

At this time I'd like to propose reasons for technological
civilizations out-there actually broadcasting radio waves just like we
do, even though they evolved differently and have different culture etc.

First, most planets of the rocky type like the four inner planets
around Sol (the Sun) which are large enough to hold a good atmosphere
for evolving life, like Earth and Venus, have differentiated masses of
materials so that various mineral deposits exist. Intelligent life on
such planets would discover these minerals and discover their
properties. One significant property discovered would be that some
materials are insulators and some are conductors. Even if commercial
distribution of energy in the form of electricity wasn't used, the
properties of electricity would be well investigated, including the
property of alternating current being radiated from one place and
received at another. I think this means radio transmission would be
discovered and developed as a scientific curiosity at the very least.

A technological society may be treated somewhat as a large
manufacturing plant with a large computing system (the brains of the
creatures in the society being the CPUs). Any maufacturing/computing
needs communication. In the search for better communication, all sorts
of media would be investigated. Just as we on Earth are experimenting
with communicating via all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation
from very-low-frequency radio thru ultraviolet (x-rays and gamma-rays
aren't used because they are too dangerous) as well as acoustic waves
and even thinking about maybe gravity waves someday, I suspect alien
civilizations would investigate them all too. In a natural planetary
environment various wavelengths have various advantages and
disadvantages. Some bounce around between ground and ionosphere to
provide better than expected long-distance communication albeit not
reliably. Some pass thru the atmosphere thus are effective for
satellite-based communication. Some bend around the planet to provide
reliable medium-range communication. Some are line-of-sight to provide
secure (private) and reliable communication. Some pass thru buildings
or go around them smoothly to provide good local communication. Some
have such short wavelengths they can be sent via conduits such as
waveguides or fibers. -- I suspect the whole electromagnetic spectrum
would be used for various purposes. Chances are lots of
broadcast-style communication (more efficient than
directed-communication when a mass-audience is desired, such as for
political brainwashing or civil-defense bulletins) would happen to
leak out and be detected from other planets around other stars.

We should simulate radio conditions on various possible planetary
atmospheres, starting with known ones in our own Solar system, pick
wavelengths that are likely to leak out, and listen for those wavelengths.
For planets like our own, we simply use ground-based SETI receivers
tuned for what passes thru our own atmosphere. For planets unlike our
own we might need space-based SETI receivers to catch stuff that leaks
out of their atmospheres but not into ours.

Any weak links in that chain of argument in favor of radio-based SETI?
It's sort of a straw man to knock down, not something I'm very
convinced of, but I'm leaning in that direction and I'd like to hear
any rebuttal or amendments.

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

Date: 21 Oct 82 8:25:14-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!ixlpc!mhauck at Ucb-C70
Subject: Not alone
Article-I.D.: ixlpc.4054714
Via:  Usenet; 27 Oct 82 0:54-PDT

How can anyone say we are alone untill they have looked back throught history?
What about the Egyptian Pymramids and the Atezs(spelling?)?  What about all
the cave drawing that have been found showing what looks like men in space
suits?  How about Chariots of the Gods?  Hasn't any one thought of these.
It has been stated that all myths begin in fact.  What if a group of space
travlers stopped here thousands of years ago.  Wouldn't they have been
throught of as gods?  Just think how we would look to people back then.
An airplane could be Apollo's sun chariot, a flame thrower lighting.
Just think of it.
And to those that believe in God, is not God a superior intelligence?  Why
could he not have come and started this world, a great intelligence watching
the life he placed here grow and develop.
Finally what civilization would want to have any thing to do with a planet
that seems bent on destroying itself.  We can
can't even get along with other countries, let alone ourselves, so why even
bother with a life form that will destroy itself in a few hundred years.
Think about the UFO's, men chaseing them any intelligent life would realize
we are to afraid to allow non earth beings to come to this planet, without
believeing they are here to conquer. And try to destroy them.
mankind is not ready for any visitors from other planets and I think any
intelligent life would know it.
	M.J.Hauck

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

Date: 21 Oct 82 8:25:14-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!ixlpc!mhauck at Ucb-C70
Subject: Not alone
Article-I.D.: ixlpc.4054714
Via:  Usenet; 27 Oct 82 0:56-PDT

How can anyone say we are alone untill they have looked back throught history?
What about the Egyptian Pymramids and the Atezs(spelling?)?  What about all
the cave drawing that have been found showing what looks like men in space
suits?  How about Chariots of the Gods?  Hasn't any one thought of these.
It has been stated that all myths begin in fact.  What if a group of space
travlers stopped here thousands of years ago.  Wouldn't they have been
throught of as gods?  Just think how we would look to people back then.
An airplane could be Apollo's sun chariot, a flame thrower lighting.
Just think of it.
And to those that believe in God, is not God a superior intelligence?  Why
could he not have come and started this world, a great intelligence watching
the life he placed here grow and develop.
Finally what civilization would want to have any thing to do with a planet
that seems bent on destroying itself.  We can
can't even get along with other countries, let alone ourselves, so why even
bother with a life form that will destroy itself in a few hundred years.
Think about the UFO's, men chaseing them any intelligent life would realize
we are to afraid to allow non earth beings to come to this planet, without
believeing they are here to conquer. And try to destroy them.
mankind is not ready for any visitors from other planets and I think any
intelligent life would know it.
	M.J.Hauck

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

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

28-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #27
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 27

Today's Topics:
			I Hope They Leave Us Alone
			 history and outer space
			SETI, advisability of ...
			 more 'is anyone there?'
		 a monkey wrench into 'is anyone there'??
		       Re: Ain't logic fun?? - (nf)
			     Money for SETI?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 27 October 1982, 10:54-EDT
From: John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ>
Subject: I Hope They Leave Us Alone
To: space at MIT-MC

In the context of the discussion about SETI, I ought to ask the
question: Do we really want contact with ETs?  Perhaps they will bring
us superneat technology and perhaps they will be incredibly cute, but I
am very uneasy about the prospects of meeting some civilization more
advanced than ours.  Here are some reasons:

	1. Science is fun.  Science and technology are not the answers,
but the process of finding them.  If some BEM told me, for example, the
precise half-life of the proton, or why faster-than-light really is
possible, or how to cut unemployment without raising inflation, I would
be interested, and grateful.  But a good deal of the fun of the search
would be gone.

	2.  Humans may be tasty.  This may be silly, but it is a
reasonable fear when the more general possibility is considered: What do
"more advanced" (ie stronger, smarter, cleaner) creatures do when they
enter a new territory?  Ans: they do whatever they want, eating,
changing and generally mucking up anything in their way. (I note that
Carl Sagan's cute little plaque on the Voyager probes contains the
chemical composition of humans, as well as a map back here.
ET: soups on!)

	3.  Who wants to grovel?  I didn't like Childhood's End for the
same reasons that I don't like the Bible: I'm a humanist, and I don't
like the dignity of humanity to be placed under some other creatures.  I
don't want them coming here and imposing their will on us, no matter how
much it is in our interest.  Even >knowing< about ETs might be bad for
us, it might cause us to be complacent about fixing our problems as we
wait fir the aliens to arrive with the solutions.

I would prefer to wait until we are ready to go check out silly radio
shows from somewhere in Sagitarius.  At least we might get lunch.

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

Date: 27 Oct 1982 1027-PDT
From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins )
Subject: history and outer space
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 27-Oct-82 0302-PDT

Looking at history gives no firm evidence of extraterrestrial visitors.
Chariots of the Gods is almost completely bunk, and there is a book
giving more reasonable explainations for the phenomena.  If you wish
I can give you the reference after looking it up at home.  There was
an excerpt in one of the last four Science Digests.
David

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

Date: 27 October 1982 14:21-EDT
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>
Subject:  SETI, advisability of ...
To: jon.webb at CMU-20C
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think searching for evidence of intelligent life would pay off
in other ways than finding it - we'd learn new engineering and
likely new science.  A similar effect - Penzias' and Wilson's 
(and Best's?) discovery of big-bang residue while looking for
noise sources that might screw up Telco microwave transmissions.

Besides which, we might find something after all, or discover 
interesting/profitable things serendipitously.

Furthermore, SETI-type activities keep physicist and astronomer
types off the streets - very beneficial socially and cheap at 
the price.

Hence my attitude would be to go for it, for some level of funding
within an order of magnitude of $10E7/year.  Apologies to all for a 
simplistic and perhaps Pollyannnaish message.

Yours,

Oded

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

Date: 26 Oct 82 10:43:55-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!nsc!katic at Ucb-C70
Subject: more 'is anyone there?'

I don't know about Tipler's ideas, but maybe I can add something to this
discussion.  In the book "Intelligent Life in the Universe" (Carl Sagan & I S
Shklovski, Delta Books) there is an attempt at a mathmetical formula for the
number of currently existing, technically advanced sentient races in the galaxy.
This attempt is in Chapter 29, "Distribution of technical civilizations in the
galaxy."  The following is an extract/paraphrase of that attempt.

The formula is:		N = Rst * Fp * Ne * Fl * Fi * Fc * L

Where:

Rst	Mean rate of star formation, averaged over the lifetime of the Galaxy

Fp	Fraction of stars with planetary formations

Ne	Mean number of planets in each planetary system with environments
	favorable for the origin of life

Fl	Fraction of such favorable planets on which life develops

Fi	Fraction of such inhabited planets on which intelligent life with
	manipulative abilities arises during the lifetime of the local sun

Fc	Fraction of planets populated by intelligent beings on which an advanced
	technical civilization arises during the lifetime of the local sun

L	Lifetime of the technical civilization

========

Lets look at S&S's estimates of the numbers:

Rst	~10 stars per year.  This is an educated guess.

Fp	~1  S&S essentially assume that all stars will have planetary systems

Ne	~1  Ditto for inhabitable planets.

Fl	~1  Ditto for life arising.

Fi	A quote:  "The question of the evolution of intelligent life is a
	difficult one.  This is not a field which lends itselt to labratory
	experiementation, and the number of intelligent species available for
	study on Earth is limited."  S&S have adopted the value of 0.1 for this
	factor.  This is close to a WAG (Wild Ass Guess!).

Fc	"The developement of a technical civilization has a high survival value
	at least up to a point; but in any given case it depends on the concat-
	enation of many improbable events, and it has occurred only recently in
	terrestrial history."  S&S have again adopted a value of 0.1, another
	close WAG.

L	This one is the kicker!  "We can imagine two extreme alternatives for
	the evaluation of L: (a) a technical civilization destroys itself soon
	after reaching the communicative phase (L less then 10e2 years); or (b)
	a technical civilization learns to live with itself soon after reaching
	the communicative phase.  If it survives more than 10e2 years, it will
	be unlikely to to destroy itself afterwards.  In the latter case, its
	lifetime may be measured on a stellar evolutionary timescale (L much
	greater than 10e8 years)."  They go on to use two values:
		L < 10e2 years		< 10 communicative civilizations!
		L >> 10e8 years		> 10e7 comm.  civ's
	In case one, we may be the only ones, in the later case, civilizations
	maybe everywhere.  Sagan adopts ~10e7 for an average figure leading to:

			N ~ 10e6

Assuming that this is accurate, they then figure that the average steller
distance between technical civilizations is several hundred light years.  If we
(the net) use this, then we can easily deduce that we haven't been around long
enough to notice or be noticed!  S&S go through some more stuff and get some
more conclusions, but you can easily get the gist of thier ideas.

========

Let me add to this a few factors which I will NOT try to quantify:

F!p	Fraction of those technical civilizations whose outlook on life is not
	directed toward a pastoral existance.

Ft	Fraction of those technical civilizations whose outlook is sufficiently
	outwardly directed to make intersteller communication attractive

Fs	Fraction of those technical civilizations who are sane enough to not
	fear the dangers of intersteller communication

S	Speed ratio of life, assign mankind=1, those who 'think faster' than us
	get >1, slower >0 & <1.

========

Philosophically, we can state two facts:

	1)	We have not proved that intelligent life exists on other planets

	2)	We have not proved that intelligent life does not exist elsewhere

All we can say is that we haven't found anything YET.


katic	(....!nsc!katic)

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

Date: 26 Oct 82 15:51:12-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!nsc!katic at Ucb-C70
Subject: a monkey wrench into 'is anyone there'??

   An Investigation into the Factors Behind the "Is Anyone There" Discussion

In a previous message to this group, I suggested something that I'd like to get
into a discussion about.  Taking the privilege of making highly unwarrented
(but possible) assumptions, I will let fly.  Here goes:

========

Assumption 1:	Any sentient being will accomplish roughly the same amount of
		productive work in its day, regardless of the length of the day.

		D = day factor.  For mankind, D = 1.  For a race on a world
		going around faster than ours D > 1, for slower 0 < D < 1.

This addresses the question of subjective time rate.  Suppose we call our day
1 unit long.  Suppose that another sentient race (call them the Gardd) is on a
planet whose day is 5 units long.  Then, by my assumption, the Gardd will take
about 400 years to go from the car to the space shuttle (or thier equivalents).
For them, D = 0.2

========

Assumption 2:	The average intelligence of a race as a whole can vary.

Assumption 3:	The racial average intelligence of mankind is about average for
		the Galaxy.

		R = racial average intelligence.  For mankind, R = 1.  Scale
		others up/down as you would IQ's.  (I have taked the liberty
		of normalizing this quantity.)

This addresses the the question of relative intelligence.  We can free associate
here and come up with some usefull guidelines:

Corollary A:	There is a minimum value of R below which technical progress is
		impossible.

I will (somewhat arbitrarily) set this lower limit at ~0.6.  This society might
progress slowely, but I feel it will progress.  (We can temporarily assume that
there will not be any evolutionary pressure upward.  An invalid assumption, but
it makes the arguing easier.)

Corollary B:	There does not appear to be an upper limit to R.

If you wish to stipulate that the upper limit is infinate, then you may want to
call that race (person?) god.

========

Assumption 4:	The peak intelligence (I call it the Newton Factor) is roughly
		dependent on the population size of the race.  ie, the larger
		the sample size, the farther out the endpoints (of a standard
		bell curve) will be found.

Assumption 5:	Mankind is an average population size race.

		N is the peak intelligence factor.  For mankind, N is somewhere
		around 2 to 2.5.  Assume 2 for ease of use.

This puts a limit on the spurt growth of scientific/technological (s/t) growth.
If a Newton or an Einstein does not come along every now & then, progress is
slower.  If a transcendent genius does appear, the race may make great growth
strides in (relatively) short periods of time.

========

Assumption 6:	The carnivorous background of a race affects the Darwinian
		competition aspect of a race.

		C = 1 for a carnivore, much less for a herbrivore.  On the other
		hand, C > 1 for an omnivore.

This affects the s/t growth rate of that race--carnivores evolve faster, are
more efficient competitors and live a 'smarter' life style.  (Although there are
arguments for being an even smarter prey species, I don't accept them.)
Omnivores have the advantage of a wider scope of available food sources.

Unfortunately, this is a factor which has a tradeoff associated with it.  If a
race if highly competative, it is also prone to violence.

Corollary C:	The violence factor for mankind, V = 1.  For a more peaceful
		race, V > 1.  For a less peaceful one, 0 < V < 1.

For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that this factor is lowest in
herbrivores and highest in carnivores; with omnivores falling in the middle.

========

Assumption 7:	The competition enherant in a multisexed race enchances s/t
		growth rate two ways: through genetic mixing as well as through
		evolutionary choice decisions in mate selection(s).

		M = 1 for a multisexed race, much less for a unisexed race.

Look at the evolution of unicellular anumals.  Those ones which are multisexed
generally show a marked advantage in fitting to new niches in the echology, etc.

On the other hand, it has been suggested that any race with greater than 2 sexes
will have such an inordinate sex drive that no intelligence will be left over
for any other purpose.  Certainly life-as-we-know-it has no (even minimally)
intelligent races other than bisexual.

========

Assumption 8:	The curiousity factor of a race affects its s/t growth rate.

		I (investigation) = 1 for mankind.

Questions: 

--Can intelligence be seperated from curiousity or is curiousity only one
	(necessary) part of intelligence?
--Is s/t growth possible with a low/zero value of I?
--Is evolution of intelligence possible without necessary evolution of
	curiousity?

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

What is the point behind all of this?  This entire discussion has been taking
place under the assumption that all other sentient races act just as we do!  I
would like to see some questioning of this assumption.

Thoroughly cowed but bravely marching onward

katic	(....!nsc!katic)

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

Date: 23 Oct 82 21:26:53-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Ain't logic fun?? - (nf)

Lets be mathematical about this:

How many intelligent species do we know of?
At least one.

How many star systems have we investigated?
One (not too thoroughly).

So the expected value for number of intelligent species found per star
system >= 1!

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

Date: 28 October 1982 00:47-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Money for SETI?
To: Webb at CMU-20C
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Let me propose this alternative. Instead of treating the itsy bitsy
teenie weenie little bit of money we spend on space currently as a
rare commodity, and having all the uses for it fight against each
other like rats on a sinking ship [SETI, manned space station,
unmanned orbiters of Jupiter&Saturn, solar missions, Mars rover,
surveys of asteroids&Moon, more shuttle orbiters, Halley's and other
comets, ...], why not find ways to get the public so enthusiastic
about each worthwhile&inexpensive activity in space [4 cents per USA
citizen per year is really virtually free!! Even $10/(yr*person) is
less than the pizza budget] that people will demand more space
activity and eager watch the results that come back from each new mission?

One pizza per person per year will pay for an awful lot of space activity!

P.s. it was sad the other night seeing the Nova rerun where somebody
at JPL said matter of factly that we'd have a rover on Mars in 1986.
So many many things have been cut in recent years, and so many other
things have been threatened that we rave about what's not cut and
totally forget what was cut a while back, like the Mars rover. Imagine
time-lapse images from Mars on the evening news, 24 hours of roving
collapsed into a 5-minute "Report From Mars" that is a regular nightly
feature!! Wild Kingdom shows a half hour of nature stuff 5 nights a
week. How about the same for Mars, say 15 minutes of time-lapse
imagary mixed in with 15 minutes of discussion about what was found
that day and earlier? People like lotteries. How about funding the
whole Viking project by having people try to guess each day what will
be found around the next bend in the <canal>?

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

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

29-Oct-82  0317	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #28
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 28

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Ain't logic fun?? - (nf)
		 Re: Mutations and intelligence in space.
			 Galileo's star drawings
				  STS-5
		  Re: Pournelle's comment on exploration
		   Amateur Radio Station on the Shuttle
		     250,000,000 people per year    
			    Recovery Sighted!
			   Population pressure
			     Lunar Observing
				  Alone
				Re: Alone
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 October 1982 06:54-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Ain't logic fun?? - (nf)
To: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

There's one problem with your estimate of 1 intelligent species per
star system (ignoring the obvious problem that at least three other
species on Earth are also intelligent although not technological, as I
mentionned a couple times before) -- Your data is very biased. Suppose
a survey were conducted in every star system in the Galaxy, asking
whether an intelligent species existed there? Exactly one survey sheet
would be turned in, after all who would turn it in on the other systems?

The reason this planet we're on is suitable for life and not the
others in our system, instead of the other way around with Venus nice
and Earth unbearable, is because if this planet weren't habitable we
wouldn't be here contemplating the question. Your survey with Earth as
the only place surveyed is very biased. You've picked a place where
intelligent life exists, to conduct the survey, rather than a random
place in the Galaxy. Any way you look at it, the expected value won't
be 1 until we have picked a few RANDOM star systems out there, not our
own, and found them all to be inhabited with intelligent life.

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

Date: 27 Oct 82 15:17:01-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.els at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Mutations and intelligence in space.
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.526
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4054
Via:  Usenet; 28 Oct 82 3:50-PDT

  

      One weak link that I can think of is that general broadcasts usually
are fairly weak( on an interstellar scale), and most would be washed out
in the background clutter.  Arguments similar to yours have been used to
arrive at the idea of listening around the "water hole".  The idea of
listening for random leakage is OK, though if civilizations are fairly
dense in distribution.  It has the advantage of giving a "peeping tom"
sort of view into the society(ies) on the other planet.  Broadcasts that
are beamed out intentionally are certainly more likely to be censored w.r.t.
accidentally giving a potential enemy vital info.


                       els[Eric Strobel]
                       pur-ee!pur-phy!els

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

Date: 25 Oct 82 17:32:17-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: Galileo's star drawings
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.160
Via:  Usenet; 28 Oct 82 3:55-PDT

As an exercise in historical appreciation, I tried comparing my telescopic
observations of the Pleiades and Orion with those published by Galileo
in "The Sidereal Messenger" (I used "Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo"
edited by Stillman Drake.) Galileo's drawing of the Pleiades has 36 stars
in it and I could identify all but one of them. Actually there isa very
dim candidate star in about the right position, but I wonder if Galileo
could have seen it (I suppose he did.) When I looked at his Orion drawing
though, I couldn't even get started comparing them with my observation.
There didn't seem to be any correlation at all. This is a total mystery
to me and I would appreciate any light that anyone can shed on it.
(The Orion drawing has about 80 stars.)

I don't think that the proper motions of the stars are any where near
what would be required to account for this. Also, Galileo's drawings are
quite distorted. I attribute this to an extremely small field of view
through his primitive telescope. Is this right? But again, that can't
account for the total lack of correlation that I find.

Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Date: 28 Oct 1982 at 1135-CDT
From: kjm@UTEXAS-11
Subject: STS-5
To: space@mit-mc

Does anyone know how the preparations for STS-5 are coming?
-------

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

Date: 26 Oct 82 17:09:02-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekcrd!azure!steveb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Pournelle's comment on exploration
Article-I.D.: azure.1383
Via:  Usenet; 28 Oct 82 18:09-PDT

	Jerry Pournelle: ". . .we can sure as hell learn what population
pressure is REALLY like if we stay here. . ."
	Do not forget -- there is *NO* alternative to UNBEARABLE
population pressure but to either a) lower the birth rate, or b) raise
the death rate.  Space colonization will NOT do it.  Why?  Take some
very rough figures -- current earth population ~ 4 Billion; current
doubling time ~ 30 years.  Averaged over the next 30 years, thats
about 130 million new people a year.  Averaged over the next 60 years, 
that's about 250 million new people a year.  Anyone care to suggest
that we can homestead out 250 MILLION people each and every year?
A few thousand or hundred thousand, sure.  But if you count on
space exploration to check population pressure, you'll end up with
a far more effective check -- the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
		Steve Biedermann	(decvax|ucbvax)!teklabs!tekmdp!steveb

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

Date: 26 Oct 82 22:04:44-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Amateur Radio Station on the Shuttle
Article-I.D.: eagle.580
Via:  Usenet; 28 Oct 82 18:22-PDT

It now appears POSSIBLE that STS-9, the first launch of the Spacelab,
will carry an amateur radio station.  Owen Garriot, W5LFL, who will be
an astronaut on the mission, will be the operator.

The Westlink Amateur Radio News service has been hypeing this topic
up quite heavily in the past two weeks.  Before everybody gets all
excited, there are several caveats that should be remembered:

1. The proposal is not yet final.  Significant progress is being made,
however.

2. STS missions are launched into very low altitude, low inclination
orbits.  This means that passes are short (try dialing the 900 DIAL-IT
number during a mission and listen to how often they hand off to a new tracking
station).  Passes visible from temperate latitudes are even quicker and
at low elevations.

3. If they carry essentially a 2m walkie-talkie as proposed, without repeater
capability, stations on the ground will not be able to hear each other
as they attempt to contact the shuttle.  Combine this with the adrenaline
factor, and Garriot will likely not hear much more than interference
unless the amateurs calling him are VERY disciplined.

4. Shuttle astronauts (and astronauts in general) are VERY busy people. 
It is not clear how much spare time Garriot will have to spend yakking
on the radio.  On the other hand, since the mission will last over a
week and is primarily intended to ferry up Spacelab, perhaps he'll have
some time.

Phil Karn, KA9Q

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

Date: 28 Oct 1982 1841-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: 250,000,000 people per year    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

	The oft repeated (and 1930 vintage) argument about space travel
not being able to solve earth's population problems is a canard based on a
belief that space travel is very difficult, and can never become as
commonplace as, say, commercial air travel.  This may have been a
reasonable position in the 1930's, but I don't think it holds up with
what's already been accomplished, and with the new, second generation,
space travel proposals.  According to my rough calculations the airlines
now carry about 100,000,000 passengers on multi-hour trips per year.

	250,000,000 a year could be launched easily if there were a mere
thousand community spaceports around the world.  The average traffic per
port would be only about two jumbo jet loads per day, a lot by today's
technology, probably not in a few decades.

	Meanwhile, up in the sky, the O'Neill colonists are busily
building habitats.  If a 100,000 person habitat can build a copy in a
year, then after a decade the exponentially growing number of colonies can
absorb a few hundred million immigrants a year.  After two decades there
will be a colonist shortage, and the new habitats will have to be staffed
by robots, there not being enough people around because they breed so damn
slowly.

	In any case, space solves the space problem for those that go.
Those that choose to stay deserve what they get, whatever that may be.

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

Date: 25 Oct 82 19:40:06-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!duke!unc!kh at Ucb-C70
Subject: Recovery Sighted!
Article-I.D.: unc.4155
Via:  Usenet; 28 Oct 82 19:06-PDT

Astronomers at Cal Tech, using the 200-inch Mount Palomar telescope, have
sighted the economic recovery just beyond the orbit of the planet Saturn.
The recovery, which passes periodically through the solar system, will
not be visible to the naked eye until 1986.


(from cartoon by V.C. Rogers, Durham Morning Herald, Oct. 25, 1982)

				duke!unc!kh
				kh.unc@UDel-Relay

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

Date: 27 Oct 82 11:55:31-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70
Subject: Population pressure
Article-I.D.: tekcad.240
Via:  Usenet; 28 Oct 82 19:09-PDT

    "...Space colonization will NOT relieve population pressure..."
Only time will tell.  However, consider that industrialization leads to a
lower birth rate, and space resources may help industrialization.  Other
effects of this sort may help bring about Pournelle's suggested population
relief.
    <Serious mode off>
    Let's examine the ultimate limits on space migration.  Assume you want to
ship people averaging 50 kg out at about 11 km/s.  The kinetic energy per
person is about 3E9 Joules, or 7.5E17 Joules for 250 million people.  This is
the Earth's solar influx in about 6 seconds, or one month of electrical power
generation in the US.  Rockets are too expensive and inefficient for massive
space migration, but there are no fundamental physical reasons why cheaper
mechanisms cannot be made.
    And remember that a large proportion of the colonists will be young
couples of childbearing age; this will (at least) double the effectiveness
of space migration, by shipping both the young adults and their potential
children.  If you keep this up for a generation, the Earth's population will
not only stabilize, it will soon disappear.
    <Serious mode on>
    Most people will be too dumb to leave, regardless of how bad things get.
With cheaper transport, however, those who want to will be able to escape.

                                   Keith Lofstrom
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet:	tekcad!keithl@tek
ARPAnet:tekcad!keithl.tek@udel-relay

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

Date: 27 Oct 82 8:38:49-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sytek!gi!arizona!purdue!ecn-ec.inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Lunar Observing
Article-I.D.: inuxc.490
Via:  Usenet; 28 Oct 82 21:14-PDT

INDIANAPOLIS  OCT 27, 1982

	Some of you may have noticed the brown haze in the
air. This is usually caused be an inversion layer, warm air
trapped below cooler air. While this is not good for deep
space observing it can causes rock steady seeing.

	Last night I set up Sundark, the famous blue telescope, 
and took an utterly fantastic journey across the moon. At 340x
the image was razor sharp, a very rare event.

	To our friends in the mid-west, tonight the same weather
conditions may hold. It is time to dust off those
high power eye pieces and get some use out of them.

				Fred- BTL INDY

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

Date: 22 Oct 82 16:10:33-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      menlo70!sytek!gi!arizona!purdue!ecn-ec.inuxc!ixn5c!ihps3!houxi!houxz!hocsb!hocsh!dcs at Ucb-C70
Subject: Alone
Article-I.D.: hocsh.109
Via:  Usenet; 28 Oct 82 21:26-PDT

I hope I am not opening a pandora's box, but here goes.

Does anyone think that maybe another civilization has visited us in the
past, maybe even stayed on?  Is there any credible evidence for this?

					Doug Smith
					BTL-HO houxh!dcs
					201-949-3569

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

Date: 28 Oct 82 9:07:41-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ihnet!tjr at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Alone
Article-I.D.: ihnet.101
In-Reply-To: Article hocsh.109
Via:  Usenet; 28 Oct 82 22:42-PDT

re: "does anyone have evidence that any extraterrestrials have ever
     visited earth?"

     I remember a method to investigate the universe (but cannot remember
     who said it):

     Build a self-replicating (Von Neumann) machine, send it out to
     some galaxie, have it replicate itself "N" times, investigate
     its surroundings, and then communicate them back to HOME BASE.
     This will cover the (known) universe in a finite time, and supply
     A LOT of information about it.

     I could never help thinking that WE are part of such a Von Neumann
     machine, about half-way along in the program.
     (Fossils? - the program has been executing here on earth for
     hundreds of millions of years; fossils are the remnants of
     earlier steps in a "bootstrapping" process.)

     So the question becomes: "Are WE extraterrestrials?"

				Tom Roberts
				ihnet!tjr

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

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

30-Oct-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #29
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:
		       Amsat Phase 3B Status Report
		       Re: Columbia Countdown Query
		    Number of civilizations per galaxy
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #26
		     Re: 250,000,000 people per year
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #26
		    Re. 250,000,000 per year to space:
      Breeding; optimal population size; technological bootstrapping
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 82 21:42:51-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Amsat Phase 3B Status Report
Article-I.D.: eagle.579
Via:  Usenet; 29 Oct 82 5:03-PDT

ESA has announced that Amsat Phase-IIIB will now fly on April 2, 1983.
The board of inquiry filed its report on the launch failure of Ariane L5
on Oct 15th.  As was already stated, the third stage cryogenic hydrogen
turbopump failed before normal shutdown, causing the failure.  It is now
believed that the failure may actually have been due to overtesting of the
turbopump gearbox that weakened the unit before launch.

In any case, ESA is delaying the launch in order to subject the next
launcher to a very close inspection before another launch.  This makes us
feel a little better; there is a saying that the best launch to go on is
the one right after a failure - everybody is on their toes.

The Phase 3B mode "B" transponder (70 cm in, 2 m out) has been tested in
a thermal vacuum chamber, and found to meet specifications.  Peak power
output is approximately 50 watts, and the AGC is set to maintain an
average power output of about 15 watts.  Transponder input power at the
antenna terminals to obtain the average power output is about -105dbm.
Bandwidth is almost exactly 150 khz.

The mode "L" (23 cm in, 70 cm out) transponder has been tested and found
to not yet meet specs.  Power output is low by about a DB, and the third-order
intermodulation products are only 17 db down.  With this latest launch
slip, there will probably be time to improve the L transponder.

Phil Karn, KA9Q

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

Date: 27 Oct 82 15:42:47-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Columbia Countdown Query
Article-I.D.: alice.1020
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4053
Via:  Usenet; 29 Oct 82 7:36-PDT

STS-5 is scheduled to launch on 11 Novemeber.  The mission length
is supposed to be five days, giving a 16 November landing date.
I have not received a time of landing yet; that is usually released
the week before the launch.  As of the last I heard, everything was
running on schedule, and I haven't heard anything else for about
a week.

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

Date: 29 Oct 1982 0859-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: Number of civilizations per galaxy
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
To: Space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]29-Oct-82 08:59:19.WMARTIN>

In reference to the discussion of Sagan's formula, I just heard
an NPR Journal item (National Public Radio, aired locally on 28
Oct 82) which was an interview with James Michener regarding his
new book, "Space".  In this interview, he talked about the same
sort of formula that was printed here.  Of course, since this was
radio, there was no detail, but a couple of the comments were:

1. Binary and multiple star systems are excluded, as they are
unlikely to have habitable planets.  (I can see logic in this;
planets in such systems are likely to be gobbled up by one of the
stars, or be in eccentric orbits which cause wide variations in
heat, or just receive too much radiation from all those suns.)
That would make "Fp" much less than "~1".

2. End result was 15 current intelligent civilizations per
galaxy.

I don't have any particular emotional attachment to this result,
I'm just reporting it as it is appropriate to the current
discussion.

It loks like Michener's "Space" might be worth reading...

Will

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

Date: 29 Oct 1982 1220-EDT
From: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #26
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 27-Oct-82 0608-EDT

	What's so amazing about the Aztecs (correct spelling!) and the
Egyptians?  Many proposals of visits by spacemen are simply because we
cannot fully understand the long lost construction techniques used to
build the pyramids.  Recent findings may indicate that the stone was not
actually cut and moved, but rather "melted" with an acid and then molded
into the correct shape at the site, where it was re-hardened.  This does
not seem like such a way out idea that us clever humans couldn't have
figured out how to do it without alien help.  Try reading a little more
archaeology books once and a while.  You might start with a book called
"Riddle of the Pyramids".  I don't know the author, but I'll find out
and report back.  It takes a realistic look at the pyramid's construction,
purpose, and design.  Who knows?  You may just find it interesting.

				Sincerely,
				Robert H. Kassel
				LS.RHK@EE
-------

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

Date: 29 Oct 1982 14:14:51-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: hpm at s1-A
Subject: Re: 250,000,000 people per year
Cc: space at mit-mc

   Taking just a cursory look at costs, your figures are excessive by 2-3
orders of magnitude. Compare the cost of a shuttle (the one a private firm is
trying to buy, for instance) versus that of an executive jet, or the cost
for a shuttle flight (in terms of # of average incomes) versus that of the
first commercial plane flights. What is needed is a technological breakthrough
to bring these numbers anywhere near your figures (consider for instance that
the solid fuel shuttle boosters are already taking a significant fraction of
perchlorate(? see the article I entered a while back) production); such a
breakthrough would have to begin by getting around the mass ratio problem
(the msg after yours has some cute calculations on minimum energy needed
to get people into space but doesn't say how much ancillary mass (e.g.,
spacesuit or capsule) the numbers allow for).
   This is about the most off-the-wall assertion I've seen in the digest in
some time. Got any ideas about how we could reasonably get from here to there?

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

Date: 29-Oct-82 11:55:11 PDT (Friday)
From: reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #26
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 27 Oct 1982 0302-PDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

Re: SETI

It would be interesting if one of the interstellar bound satellites
(Pioneer or later on Voyager) would turn around and look at the earth as
would an ET looking for life in the solar system. We might get a better
idea of what they are likely to see in terms of noise vs signals, which
would in turn give us a better idea of what to look for.

Personally, while I believe the SETI has merit, and is a worthwhile
project, I don't see what's so all fired important about doing it now as
opposed to in the future. Any search now is likely to be inconclusive, and
any search in the future will be no more likely to succeed. Since we are
short on money now, let's spend it on things that are more important.

	--	Larry		--

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

Date: 29 Oct 1982 2150-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Re. 250,000,000 per year to space:
To:   space at MIT-MC  

	Of course you wouldn't do it with the shuttle; though enough
people might be moved to space with current means to get the ball rolling.
The exponential doesn't require that much traffic for the first decade -
it picks up greatly later.

	One of the most likely rocket successors is the earth based mass
driver (See "An alternative launching medium" by Kolm and Mongeau, IEEE
Spectrum, April 1982).  Rail guns have already achieved escape velocity,
the gentler coaxial accelerators are not far behind.  A mass driver long
enough to launch loosely packed people takes more real estate (about
1000Km) than a 1000g compact version, but needs no more accelerating coils
or energy.  With it you could put people in space using within a factor of
two the minimum theoretical energy.

	With a factor of four further improvement in material strength to
weight ratio over Kevlar you could build orbiting skyhooks which could
lift people gently into space at almost no energy cost, if you lowered a
similar mass of lunar slag back down.  Even with plain Kevlar you can
greatly increase the shuttle's efficiency; according to calculations done
by Burke Carley and myself, 50 million kilograms could be brought to low
earth orbit with about 1700 shuttle launches.  By first building a large
tapered Kevlar cable in orbit, which is spun up so the tip velocity
subtracts about half orbital velocity at closest approach to the surface,
the same job, including building the cable, could be done in 300 launches.
The advantage increases if you want to move more mass, because the
satellite needs to be built only once.  Its orbital momentum is restored
between succesive payload accelerations by a high specific impulse
thruster, probably an ion engine, at its hub.

	So, anyway, there are lots of reasons to believe that space travel
will get much cheaper, maybe even more than three orders of magnitude,
when things really get rolling.  Even if they don't, the wealth produced
by the growing (and growing smarter) space population will make the per
capita income higher, as in past.  The analogy with air transport is not
as weak as your naive analysis suggests.  The major reason that so many
people are able to fly today is not that the cost of flight has dropped so
dramatically since 1910, when almost nobody flew.  The main reason is that
the general wealth has increased so far that we can now afford to build
and run so many aircraft.  The same thing will happen with space transport
- the costs will decline as knowledge and experience increases, and those
same increases in knowledge will make the posessors and their friends rich
enough to afford it eventually.

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

Date: 29-Oct-82 22:52:22 PDT (Friday)
From: Hamilton.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Breeding; optimal population size; technological bootstrapping
To: Space@MC
cc: Hamilton.es

Space is NOT an ultimate answer to population pressures.  I
don't have the numbers in front of me, but I recall someone
calculated that if we continue to increase our numbers at
the present rate, in a few thousand years humanity would
have to expand outward in a ball at the speed of light to
avoid overpopulation.  Just think for a minute -- as the
near space around you fills up, the constant overpopulation
stream from your planet has to go farther and farther,
meeting more and more people along the way, to reach the
frontier.  (Anybody care to come up with some numbers?)

I'd like to discuss optimum population size, which has
relevance for both earth and space colonies.  I believe the
optimum population is one which is big enough that most
important economies of scale can exist, and with enough
redundancy such that a large common-mode disaster would not
cripple the economy.  I strongly suspect that a world
population of around 100 million would be plenty large
enough to meet these criteria.  Further, as genetic
engineering raises the avg I.Q., and people have lots of
free time to devote to the arts, we will not need large
populations to get cultural variety.

Unfortunately, as technology marches onward, it seems like a
larger and larger production runs (and thus, population) are
required to achieve the necessary economies of scale.
Conceivably, robotics and easily-reprogrammable factories
will change this.  Does anyone know of any studies
addressing these questions?

I'm also interested in the question of technological
bootstrapping.  How long would it take a couple of thousand
people dropped on a tropical island (or minimal space
colony) with nothing, to develop to our current
technological state?  Suppose we gave them all our knowledge
(microfiche, access to computer data bases, etc.) but no
tools.  How long would it take them to progress from stone
axe, to blast furnace, to VLSI factory?  What are the
critical points?  For instance, would giving them a bar of
platinum, or a human-powered lathe, or a bank of solar
cells, or whatever, reduce the time by a generation?
Anybody know of any studies (or SF novels!) addressing
this in detail?

--Bruce

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

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

31-Oct-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #30
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 30

Today's Topics:
				 Galileo?
		      Re: I still think we"re alone
			    Low-cost launching
		    IUS to Get First Workout Tomorrow
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 82 17:05:55-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!pyuxbb!pyuxdd!pyuxjj!pyuxcc!djj at Ucb-C70
Subject: Galileo?

Perhaps Galileo had a better view of the stars since he was not burdened
with centuries of pollution distorting the atmosphere.  Then again, maybe
he guessed a lot!

Dave

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

Date: 23 Oct 82 3:58:29-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!charliep at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: I still think we"re alone

I cannot let the references to UFO's go unanswered.  As a fan of the
Skeptical Enquirer, it is my duty to point out that even Dr.  Hynek, head
honcho UFOlogist-believer, admits that NOT ONE reported case of UFO
sightings is best explained by proposing some alien interference.  Even
the kindest (non-alien) observer must truly admit that the entire subject
is rife with frauds and cases of blatant tampering with the "evidence".
It's really too bad when the movie makers mislead and misrepresent the
facts, as in several recent "big hits", just to make more money.  A lot of
people REALLY BELIEVE that stuff now.  Maybe if we all pray hard enough,
ET will come back and give us an outlet for our love....

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

Date: 30 Oct 1982 1453-EDT
From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ
Subject: Low-cost launching
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: minsky at MIT-OZ


There appears to be a way to launch heavy loads that is remarkably
cheap.  In this scheme (suggested by certain scientists working in a
certain laboratory near the Livermore Valley in California) you drill
a vertical cannon into the earth.  The propellent is a small H-bomb,
and the projectile is a densely packed space-colony kit.  Kinetic
energy obtained this way may be even much cheaper than railguns or any
other conventional power source.

Of course, you have to use some lower-G system to launch people to the
rendevous, until we find how to freeze or otherwise suitably pack
them.

Of course, this Jules Verne-like fusion-launch scheme is politically
impossible today.  The authors of the scheme claim it involves
negligible radwaste escape because all activity remains buried
kilometers below ground.  But they don't deny that further details are
classified.
-------

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

Date: 30 Oct 82 9:44:15-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: IUS to Get First Workout Tomorrow
Article-I.D.: alice.1037
Via:  Usenet; 31 Oct 82 1:17-PST

The Inertial Upper Stage booster, designed to lift payloads carried
up in the shuttle into higher orbits, will get its first real workout
tomorrow.  Two satellites, DSCS Phases II and III, launched at 1205
EDT today by the new Titan booster, are now in a 95 to 120 miles orbit
around the Earth.  Tomorrow, their IUS's will ignite and, if they work,
will carry them up to geosynchronous orbits.

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

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

01-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #31
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 31

Today's Topics:
			 Space Industrialization
		       Why Space Industrialization?
			       Optimism   
		    Number of civilizations per galaxy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 1982 1108-EST
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: Space Industrialization

   There is a lot of blithe talk about opportunities for new industries in
space, but a lack of hard information as to what they might be.  Perhaps
people on this list can help.  As I see it, the only advantage space offers
is zero gravity.  Better vacuums are attainable in Earth labs.  Raw materials
are more easily mined from the sea-bed or Antarctica than they are
from the asteroid belt.  Solar energy is more plentiful and more constant
in space, but developing it would be a project ten times the size of
the Alaska pipeline, and we need something we can do in the next ten years.
And if cheap fusion came along our hundred billion dollars would go down
the drain.
    I've heard of two processes that might get a boost from zero-g:
drug production by electrophoresis and semi-conductor material
production.   From what little I know about electrophoresis it works
by putting the materials to be separated in an electric field.  Each
molecule is accelerated by the field by an amount depending on its
molecular weight (or, more exactly, ratio of charge to weight).
I don't know enough to say how zero-g helps you here, but maybe someone
out there does.  In any case, it seems that recombinant DNA lets you
synthesize what you want directly, rather than having to synthesize
everything and then separate out what you want.   Recombinant DNA would
have another, political advantage in that it would not be dependent on 
the whims of Congress and NASA.  Congress has already cut back the number
of shuttle flights once.  Who would want their profits to depend on whether
David Stockman was sharpening his budget cutting axe?
    The other process, semi-conductor manufacture, I do know something
about.  For crystallizing silicon, space-based processing is pointless.
There are dozens and dozens of steps in the manufacture of a chip.
They all introduce defects.  The bulk of the defects that kill chips
come in these later stages, not in the original wafer.  Also, the cost
of an advanced chip is largely the cost of its design, not its manufacture
(except for memories).    We can already put more transistors on a silicon
chip than we know what to do with.
    However, there is another material, gallium arsenide, that might
benefit from space-based processing.  GaAs has six times the
mobility of silicon, meaning that an electron will move six times faster
through it in a given electric field.  Many circuits are speed-limited by
the time it takes an electron to cross a transistor, so GaAs has clear
advantages.  At present it is used in microwave applications where only
a couple of transistors are needed.  For more complex circuits, the yield
of defect-free parts is very low.   No one has succeeded in making 
even an eight-bit microprocessor out of it.  Part of the problem is 
because GaAs doesn't crystallize as cleanly as pure silicon.  Zero-g
processing might help, and then again it might not.  It's something to
try anyway.  However, it is also difficult to put good insulating layers 
on the stuff, and there could be other major yield problems.
    There is one industrial product, though, that we know space is good for:
information.   Telecommunications amounts to something like a half a billion
a year in sales.  It's hard to estimate the value of weather and Landsat
data because it is given away by the government, but that's probably 
substantial too.  For some reason this doesn't have the sex appeal of drugs
or chips.   Maybe it's because human presence is not required.  Maybe
it's because all these satellites are looking down instead of up and out.
NASA withdrew from comsat research some time ago, and now funds for 
Landsat D have been cut off.  Could all this interest in space industries
be misplaced?

John Redford
   --------

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

Date: 31 Oct 1982 1858-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Why Space Industrialization?
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I'm feeling at bit at loose ends today so, although its probably a
mistake, I think I'll take time to answer some of the questions raised by
the previous message.  To a large degree this will constitute preaching to
the converted but it is possible that there are some out there, John
included, who may be enlightened.  To the others: please bear with me.

The real answer to John Redford's question does not lie in the detailed
examination of certain industries to see which can benifit most from the
advantages of space manufacturing.  The answer can be found by considering
the big picture.  The basic imperative of space
industrialization is simply that virtually everything will be cheaper and
easier when done in space.  By everything, I mean IC manufacture, steel
products production, energy production, consumer goods manufacture, metals
refining, agriculture, food processing, and many other things.

The reasoning behind this claim is as follows.

What governs manufacturing costs are the costs of the various ingredients
to the process.  This is raw materials, energy, transportation, capital,
and labor.  Looking into the future, it seems that labor will get cheaper
as automation makes things less and less labor intensive.  Energy and raw
materials can be expected to get more expensive.  The cost of capital
depends on the degree of capital intensiveness of the process, the risk
involved and imponderables like the prevailing interest rates.
Transportation is usually dominated by energy costs which will rise and
the distances involved.

The current "problem" with space industrialization is that of
transportation and labor (high cost) and capital (high risk).

First transportation.  It can reasonably be argued that the high cost of
transportation will drop and drop dramatically as time, money, and effort
are applied to the problem.  The past few days have seen several
suggestions on how the to orbit transportation situation can be changed
radically, and for the better.  It should be clear that the from orbit
direction can only be easier.

Consider, for instance, a large metal balloon, which is evacuated, loaded
with goods destinied for the surface, and pushed gently in the direction
of the earth.  Unlike a meteor or space craft this object will have a
density of, say, one tenth that of air at STP.  So as it encounters the
upper fringes of the atmosphere it will bounce and roll and gradually
deaccelerate and sink to the altitude where the air density is 1/10 that
of sea level.  Then you open a small valve and let air in until the
balloon reaches the altitude you choose.  Let down a tether to a
waiting ship and tow the balloon to port.  The balloon is converted to beer
cans or tank treads or what have you and the cargo inside is loaded onto
trains and trucks and delivered to market.

As transportation to and fro becomes cheaper, the amount of activity that
can go on there will increase.  At first, clearly, only the highest
value-per-gram items will be profitable.  But as transportation becomes
cheaper more and more things will becore profitable.  As the volume of
activity increases the benefits of yet cheaper methods of transportation
will also increase.  Economies of scale will also help drive down costs.

It's not just transportation that will improve with effort.  The cost of a
manhour of labor will also decrease.  As the environment becomes more
common all the ancillary expenses of labor will drop.  Food and housing
costs will drop as it becomes cheaper to import it, economies of scale
will eventually make growing food feasible.  Insurance and other fringe
benifits will get cheaper as more is learned about the environment.  If
the demand for jobs in space exceeds the supply of such jobs the wages
costs will also drop.

From a mechanical stand point factories will be easier and cheaper to
build in space.  There's no gravity to worry about.  That will make most
things easier.  Consider a process that needs an assembly line 10 miles
long.  On the earth you would need either a very large (and expensive)
building or a complicated switchback type arrangement.  In space you just
stretch it out in the most convenient way.

Consider the difficulty of making 100 story high I-beams for a large
building.  It would be almost impossible on the earth but in space you
just set up the steel rolling mill and have it keep rolling I-beam until
you have it as long as you want it.  Extrude as many as you need and let
them hang there in space cooling then ship them down.  Have the balloon
drop them right into the building's foundation like a huge crane, add
concrete and you have the building's superstructure done.

This sort of thing will reduce the capital requirements, and increasing
familiarity with the concepts will reduce the risk premium of the
capital's cost.

As presumably everyone realizes, most of the raw materials in this solar
system are not to be found within 5 miles of the surface of the third
planet.  Most of them are above that planet's atmosphere.  As the easily
accessible materials are used up on the earth, the exoatmospheric sources
will become increasingly attractive.  As better transportation techniques
are developed (perhaps for other original purposes) the costs of bringing
materials from the moon and the asteroids will decrease.  As more of the
intermediate stages of a manufacturing process are already produced or
used in space they will become available in space at a discount from their
earth surface prices.

If you are making electric motors and someone else has already built a
copper wire factory because the Navy needed a single piece of copper wire
500 Km long, then copper wire will be cheaper than wire imported from the
surface.  If, in addition, GE developed a process for making high quality
permanent magnets out of bizarre alloys that could only be made in space, then
the best magnets available anywhere in the system might just be dirt cheap
if you happened to need them in orbit.  You get the idea.

Energy is also something that will be cheaper in space than anywhere else.
Except for nuclear power, all the energy mankind has ever used is stored
solar energy.  Why not get it straight from the source?  I wouldn't worry about
cheap fusion power myself, but if it comes, so what?  Are you going to
throw away a solar panel or a big solar mirror which you are running
for free just because someone will sell you cheap power?  Once you've
bought the solar cells you might as well keep on using them.  When they
wear out you can replace them with a fusion generator.

If you're getting solar energy from the source, and you have access to
hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen you can probably grow food more
economically on space than on the surface.  Continuous daylight, fully
controlable growing conditions, no pests, no diseases, what could be
better?  And if you've got the food there, why not do all the high energy
processing there too?

The whole system is a large scale positive feedback cycle.  As more and
more industries move into space the leverage for making some aspect of
space utilization cheaper becomes enormous.  Then each incremental
improvement lures new and different industries into space since it has
reached the threshold where they can be profitable.  The larger the volume
of space activity the more money and effort will be spent on improving the
profitability of those activities.  This increase in the technology base
will benefit everyone both in space and on the surface.

The way to determine how far this process of space indutrialization can go
is to look at the physical limits of the basic processes.  You don't call
up NASA and ask them how much the rental on the shuttle is if you want to
know if it will be economically feasible to roll steel plates for
container ships in space in 50 years.  The question is really: what is the
energy cost of delivering steel plates from orbit to Philidelphia harbor?
The answer is there is an energy surplus of 32 million joules per
kilogram!  This sounds interesting, maybe we can sell 1% of that energy as
electricity for a penny a kwh?  That is 9 cents per kilogram.  If a
container ship contains 10 000 tonnes of steel then that should make me
about a million dollars just in delivering the steel to the customer.
Plus the price I charge for the steel itself, and I should be doing OK.

What is the energy cost of bringing a tonne of asteroid back from the
belt?  What form do I need that energy in?  How fast do I need it?  Will
solar panels and a mass driver do it?  How about nuclear explosions?  How
about a solar sail?  Can I do my processing in the belt and just ship back
the the finished products?

Can people live and work for long periods of time in space?  Are O'Neill
colonies a practical way to house people working in space?  Will people
like it?

The answers to these questions suggests to me that there is no serious
physical limit that will prevent space industrialization.  Indeed, it
looks as if most things will be much easier and more economical in space
than on the earth.  If this is so than in 100 years there may be nothing
left on the surface of economic significance.  This is not to say that
there will be nothing of any value though.  Converting the earth to a park
sounds like a good idea to me.  As others have suggested exporting the
earth's population is only difficult, not impossible.  If it should be
deemed necessary or important, why not?

The key is thinking big.  If you can think of a way to do something, why
not consider it straight forward?  If you can't think of a way to do it,
but its theoretically possible, why not consider it doable?  If you can't
prove it impossible, why not consider it worth studying?  If its been
proved impossible, why not consider it unlikely?  Don't consider it
absolutely impossible and not worth thinking about until God himself comes
and personally tells you so!

	Optimistically yours,
	Ted Anderson

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

Date: 31 Oct 1982 2047-PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Optimism   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

And if God Himself tells you it's impossible, be sure to be skeptical,
and ask "Who is this 'God' person, anyway?".

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

Date: 1 November 1982 04:35-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Number of civilizations per galaxy
To: WMartin at OFFICE-8
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Actually, in a binary star system with suitable mass ratios, wouldn't
most of the remaining mass collect at the L-4 and L-5 points, creating
two massive planets after things stabilize? The question then is
whether these two locations are a reasonable distance for life to
evolve. Of course having only one planetary distance instead of a
whole range (Mercury to Neptune in our case) decreases the probability
of a habitable planet considerably.

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

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

02-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #32
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 32

Today's Topics:
				IUS Works
			  vanVandenburg flights
		  Re: Pournelle"s comment on exploration
			 Space Industrialization
		  what are short term space industries?
			    Population growth
		    re re 250,000,000 people per year
		  Population growth - on second thought
		    Launching by Mass Driver, Skyhooks
		      Take that, you pessimist!    
			 Space Industrialization
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Oct 82 22:17:59-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: IUS Works
Article-I.D.: alice.1040
Via:  Usenet; 1 Nov 82 3:22-PST

The second phase of the DSCS Phases II and III launch succeeded tonight,
and both satellites are now in geosynchronous orbits.  The Initial
Upper Stage booster that carried them out of their 95 mile orbit
ignited on schedule and worked perfectly.  The new Titan 34D put them
in their initial orbit, and that also performed without a flaw.

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

Date: 29 Oct 82 17:41:17-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!public at Ucb-C70
Subject: vanVandenburg flights
Article-I.D.: gsp86.157
Via:  Usenet; 1 Nov 82 3:24-PST

	Last I heard, shuttle flights out of Vandenburg will be polar
shots. First, can anyone confirm that, second will they take off to
the north or south? In other words does L.A. get to see it, or S.F.?

					murray at intelqa

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

Date: 29 Oct 82 17:48:26-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Pournelle"s comment on exploration
Article-I.D.: omsvax.189
In-Reply-To: Article azure.1383
Via:  Usenet; 1 Nov 82 3:27-PST

	Jerry Pournelle: ". . .we can sure as hell learn what population
pressure is REALLY like if we stay here. . ."

	Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was suggesting
we ship all the excess (who chooses?) population out into space, but
rather that the drastic increase in *average* standard of living for
the entire planet, due to the increase in available energy, materials,
and processing techniques, would cause the birth rate to drop.  We have some
data that show a correlation between increasing standard of living and
decreasing birth rate both in the long-industrialized nations of North
America and Europe as well as the recently developed nations of Asia.
This hardly constitutes discovery of a universal principle, but
hell, it's the best hope we've got that population won't continue to
increase to a massive die-off from one or all of the Four Horsemen.  I
personally do not think that Planned Parenthood is going to be able to
make a dent in the birth rate by reasoned discourse with any large
fraction of the world's fertile adults.

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

Date:  1 Nov 1982 0704-EST
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at SCRC-TENEX>
Subject: Space Industrialization
To: space at MIT-MC

"a project time times the size of the Alaska pipeline"?
C'mon, I thought you were talking about SPACE industry, not
powering EARTH industry.  To power your GaAs plant would
require some aluminized mylar for heat, and some solar cells
(perhaps manufactured locally!) or a small steam turbine for
the electricals.  A very small piece of a shuttle cargo, I'm
sure.

As for vacuum not being an advantage.  I thought I had heard
it was better than any produced with other than the most
elaborate equipment on Earth.  No matter, it's CHEAP!

Don't discount gravity.  I notice that a lot of Ted's
items are gravity-related benifits.  Gravity is a BIG
factor in trying to make a 100-story I-beam, and a
prohibitive factor in actually moving it into place!
(Of course, without gravity, you probably wouldn't NEED
a 100-story I-beam anyway; tension structures would use
a long cable instead, and use rotation to keep things
apart...
-------

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

Date: 1 Nov 1982 1402-EST
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: what are short term space industries?
Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11868515394.29.583.3215 at DEC-MARLBORO>

Lots of things are physically possible; most are not economic.  Perhaps there
are ways to get things to and from orbit for ten cents a kilogram. Perhaps
growing oranges at L5 will be cheaper than growing them in Florida.  But we
can't get to that point unless there's something right now that's easier to do
in space than on earth. What can we say to the steely-eyed man from Johnson and
Johnson when he asks incredulously: "It will cost one hundred million dollars
to do ONE WEEK of research on SpaceLab?"  It had better be something more
concrete than "Space is the high frontier", or he'll spend his money
shoring up the image of Tylenol. 
    Last time I looked, the entire merchant semiconductor industry in the
US had sales of five billion dollars.  That's up from nothing in about
twelve years, but it's still only half of NASA's budget.  Even if
space industries have the same kind of explosive growth, they won't be able
to supplement NASA until well through the 1990s.  Since IC research is much
cheaper than space research, and its benefits are a lot more obvious, space
probably won't grow as fast.  The comsat industry certainly hasn't.  The
first ones went up in the mid-sixties.  At that rate space industrialization
won't get up steam until the next century.
    The sort of developments we're talking about here take serious amounts
of money, money like what the oil companies spend on exploration.  Exxon
has excellent reasons to look for oil, and we would have to present reasons
just as compelling to put the same amount of money into space.  What would
they be?

John Redford

PS  What have the Russians been doing in their space station for the last N
years?  If no one knows then it might be something good enough for the
military to keep to themselves.
   --------

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

Date: 1 Nov 1982 11:09 PST
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Population growth
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
cc: Wedekind.es

The "low-cost launching" discussion grew out of a question about
how long our current birth and death rates can persist.  Low cost
launching or no, the answer is "not too long".

Unless there are some really wild developments soon (FTL drive or
VERY matter- and energy-efficient "people") we will find our galaxy
cramped before the population reaches 10E20 or 10E25 times its current
value.  With a 30-year doubling time that gives something like:

	X------------------------------N-------P

where 

	X is the beginning of the historical period,
	N is now, and
	P is a generous estimate of when the party will be over.

						Jerry 

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

Date: 1 Nov 1982 18:12:40-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: re re 250,000,000 people per year

   Your technical analysis is interesting, but supports my conclusion that
an unpredictable breakthrough is necessary (e.g. your request for a material
[stronger] than Kevlar). I'm also fascinated by your casual assumption of
1000 km spinward being available---I can think of a few places where such
land exists and most of them present major difficulties.
   As for my "naive economic analysis", look who's talking! Do you even have
any idea of what the curve of total population vs. number of flights taken
actually looks like?
   The third item is even more critical---what gets done about population
while we're waiting for this pie in the sky to materialize?

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

Date: 1 Nov 1982 15:19 PST
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Population growth - on second thought
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
cc: Wedekind.es

It's hard to botch an estimate of something which is a logarithm,
but I tried.  My msg on the limits of population growth didn't
listen to itself.  Without FTL transport, in the next couple thousand
years we'll only have time to fill about a millionth of the galaxy
before the doubling must begin to slow.  This means about 20 less
doublings than I had figured on.

On the other hand,  my figure for max persons/star system might
be too pessimistic; hike this up by a factor of a million (to 10E15
times the current population of earth - after all, imagine how many
starships you can make the solar system into!) and maybe we're
in the same ballpark of 60 doublings (a couple of millenia, 20% of
history) as a generous upper bound.
						
							Jerry 

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

Date: 1 Nov 1982 9:31-PST
From: dietz at usc-cse
Subject: Launching by Mass Driver, Skyhooks
To: hpm@s1-a,space@mit-mc
Origin: usc-cse
Reply-To: dietz.usc-cse@udel-relay

Mass driver:  The human body can take a lot of acceleration if it's
immersed in a fluid of equal density.  To work, this fluid must also
fill the lungs.  Possible fluids are fluorocarbons, which dissolve much
oxygen, or a pressurized Xenon-Oxygen mixture (at 50 atm. it has the
same density as the body, and we'd only need aboiut .5% oxygen to
breathe it).  The Xenon has the disadvantage of being an anesthetic,
but is much easier to breathe than a liquid.

The upper limit to this technique is the nonuniformity of the human
body.  At high enough acceleration (hundreds to thousands of g's?) the
bones begin to sink though the lighter tissue (ugh).

Skyhook:  Doesn't the skyhook (and the elevator) have problems with
space junk?  The volume swept out by the cable is substantial.  I'd
expect that it would hit orbiting fragments every few days.  One hit is
enough to break it.  Most of the cable is travelling at high velocity
relative to the junk, increasing both the probability and the energy of
collision.
 

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

Date: 01 Nov 1982 2129-PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Take that, you pessimist!    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

	Well, the exact timing of individual technical advances is
unpredictable, but the overall process has a kind of regularity - for
example Moore's 1965 law that the number of components per IC will double
each year for a long time shows no sign of letup, though it required and
continues to require continuous scientific advances.  A similar law holds
about the maximum speed of transportation, or the strength to weight of
materials.
	The mass drivers don't have to be spinward; once you escape the
tyranny of the exponential a couple of thousand km/hr aren't such a big
deal, and polar would be ok - we were talking about escape velocity mostly
anyway.  Also, a mass driver of this kind would be a bulk launcher, and
would take only three minutes or so for each launch cycle.  If built for
shuttle scale payloads, it could conservatively launch 10 people every
five minutes, 120/hr, 3000/day, one million per year, so you would only
need a few hundred.  You could build some side by side, but it would be
more sensible to just use one in pipeline mode - there could be power
plants along its length, and maybe you could get a load off every few
seconds.
	A factor of four for Kevlar isn't such a big deal.  The
theoretical (bond strength limited) strength of kevlar is nearly ten times
as high as the measured strength - part of the problem is that the ends of
the polymer molecules tend to come at the same place in the fibers, so
there are what amounts to weak links.  Better randomization could fix it,
or simply longer polymer molecules (like the infinitely long ones in "The
Man in the White Suit").  When Kevlar was first discovered it was only
half the strength of the current product, but still spectacular for Dupont
to want to put it into production.  The laboratory scale spinning process
used in the experiments didn't scale up to production level, so a new
spinning method was devised.  It worked, and there was a totally
unexpected bonus - the material was twice as strong.  Materials science is
still in the black magic stage, and accidental improvements are to be
expected.  To give an idea of the bounds, the MEASURED strength/weight
ratio of many single crystal laboratory samples is nearly 100 times that
of Kevlar or present Carbon or Boron composites.
	As for crud banging into skyhooks, sweep it up, clean out the
lower orbits when emmigration gets underway - I think this is analogous to
the canals or the railroads buying up the right of way.  Occasional rocks
and cows did cause train wrecks in the old days, but the trains were
replaced because the service was so valuable.  Similarly, skyhooks are not
such a big deal, and can be replaced for the occasional meteor.  Though
maybe most of the stuff can be kept away with laser ABM tecnology - which
may or may not work against missiles, but should work against non-devious
little rocks. The rare big rocks can be avoided by swinging the skyhook a
bit.

	It should also be noted that my first message about the
possibility of moving 250M people/year off earth was a response to the
statement that it was impossible, which I consider silly.  In fact, the
population problem seems to solve itself whenever there is enough wealth
to go around - the main problem is producing the wealth in sufficient
quantity.  Also, I expect human, and quickly thereafter superhuman,
artificial intelligence, within twenty years, long before even a 15 year
doubling of human population will cause the food producing capacity of the
earth to be exceeded, and I think any plans we have now will become moot
at that point.

	As for the purpose of the expansion into the galaxy (which, of
course, I expect to be done primarily by our artificial progeny), I think
it is   A) to survive whatever potential disasters there are (sun going
nova, aliens, plague, galaxy going Seyfert, etc.) so that we can 
B) continue improving our artificial intelligence, so we know more and
think faster and better so that eventually we can   C) figure out what the
universe is really all about (probably after having occupied it all for a
long time) so that we can maybe   D) escape from it in some way, perhaps to
a bigger place, more likely to something unimaginable.  i.e.  I think the
purpose of intelligent life ought to be the task of figuring out the
purpose of life, the universe and everything with all possible vigor.

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

Date: 2 November 1982 03:38-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Space Industrialization
To: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO
cc: REDFORD@SHORTY at MIT-MC, space at MIT-AI

I was under the impression that while the capital investment of
getting an iron-nickel asteroid is tremendous the payoff is enormous
and only the lack of existing technology and unfavorable tax laws are
preventing major companies from trying it now. Perhaps somebody on
the list can resolve this question.

Besides solving our energy and raw-minerals problems, space
industrialization may provide an escape from extinction, and certainly
provides a unique place to set up astronomical equipment for getting
images at all wavelengths without any atmospheric degradation. We need
inferometers several astronomical-units in diameter to accurately
measure the diameters of interesting remote objects and to look for
planets around other stars. We need giant space telescopes that are
too big to be manufactured on Earth. It takes some space industry to
support all these Radio/Microwave/Infrared/Optical/Ultraviolet/XRay/Gammaray
telescopes used singly to provide images and in unison to provide
inferometry. Virtually all of this advanced astronomy is impossible on Earth.

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

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

03-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #33
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 33

Today's Topics:
			      Re: IUS Works
			Vandenberg Shuttle Flights
		       Technological Bootstrapping
		     We may be seeing them & rebuttal
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  2 November 1982 1108-EST (Tuesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: IUS Works

Would alice!sjb or anyone else care to fill us in on what is new about the
Titan 34D?

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

Date:  2-Nov-82 09:50-PST
From: DAUL at OFFICE  
Subject: Vandenberg Shuttle Flights
To: Space-Enthusiasts at mit-mc
 
I have been out to the launch sight.  The one observation I have to pass along 
is that there is no direct observation for the public.  The launch site it 
sitting in a canyon facing the ocean.  I realize that these flights will be 
military and so the public has no business watching.  From distant sites at 
Vandenberg you probably could see the shuttle after it is about 3 times it's 
height during the launch.  Or you could watch it from out in the ocean.

                        --Bill

 

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

Date:  2 Nov 1982 2330-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Technological Bootstrapping
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: dlenahan at USC-ISIE
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

Re:  Bruce Hamilton's question about studies or SF novels that address
tech bootstrapping in detail.

It may lack a little in detail, but James Blish's "SURFACE TENSION" is
an interesting (sf) treatment of the idea.

First  published  in 1952, but I first read it in "The Science Fiction
Hall of Fame, Vol 1" edited by  Robert  Silverberg  and  published  in
1970.

Very briefly, the inital thrust of the story is that scientists called
panatropes travewl from planet to planet seeding human-like creatures.
As the story starts, our scientists crashed where they didn't mean  to
be, and decide to "seed" the environment anyway before they die.

Catch phrases are "The panatropes make adaptations.  They  take  human
germ  cells  and  modify  them  toward  creatures  who can live in any
reasonable environment.  The result will be manlike and  intelligent."
And:   "Ordinarily  the  seeding  teams  more or less take him through
elementary school before they leave the planet, but we  won't  survive
long  enough  for  that."   And:   "The  rest  of us can put our heads
together on leaving a record for these  people.   We'll  micro-engrave
the  record  on  a set of corrosion-proof metal leaves.  Some day [our
colonists] may puzzle it out."

Then  the  story  takes  a  multi-eon  jump  and  picks  up  with  the
"intelligent" spawn attempting to apply what they've learned from  the
records.   The  twist  comes  in  that  the panatropes maximized their
"descendents" chance of survival by  adapting  them  to  their  world:
making them aquatic and near-microscopic.

The story is well-done, and very thought provoking.

(For  those  not  interested  in  this, sorry it's on the list, but my
attempts to mail to anybody at PARC-MAXC  just  gets  me  "Undelivered
Mail" kickback messages.)

Dennis
-------

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

Date: 3 November 1982 03:35-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: We may be seeing them & rebuttal
To: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC

As you say yourself, the universe doesn't comply with your wishes. I'd
say it this way, what you want and what really is, are totally
uncorrelated, except where you influence that aspect of the way things
are, or where you go sour grapes and pretend you like things the way
they are. Your wishes for the way intelligent life evolved elsewhere
are just that, wishes.

You gave me an idea for another theory of life in the galaxy.
Intelligent and technological races did indeed evolve many thousand
million years ago on early second-generation stars, and many of them
(millions) destroyed themselves before they got off their home
planets, but a few (hundreds) got into space, met each other, fought
for control of the galaxy, and ultimately only one race survived. It
controlled the whole galaxy, and to prevent competition, even the
potential evolution of competition, it made sure no intelligent
species evolved on any planet around any existing star. I can only
guess at the means employed: total sterialization of planets that
already had several intelligent life forms, setting up orbiting
sentinels around planets that hadn't evolved life, programmed to
sterialize the planet if any sign of technology appeared, and active
personal supervision in those perhaps 5% of star systems where staffed
outposts existed.

This race purified itself, getting rid of genetic diversity to assure
allegance to the race. But due to lack of genetic diversity in this
race, a disease spread thru the galaxy and wiped out this species in a
few million years, and due to lack of any other intelligent species
and active prevention in all existing stellar systems, intelligent
life couldn't evolve except on stars that hadn't yet been born out of
dust and gas, stars like our own Sun which formed 12,000 million
years after the Big Bang, 1,500 million years after the demise of the
first great Milky Way Galaxy civilization. Now 16,500 million years
after the Big Bang, we're part of the second batch of intelligent
technological civilizations working towards developing a space-based
civilization (with perhaps 1 chance out of 10,000 of succeeding; in
which case we'd be vying with other successful races for the second
great Milky Way Galaxy civilization).

Yeah, that's more sci-fi than reasonable conjecture. Let's not discuss
it too much. I just offer it as one possible theory for why we seem to
be alone in this Galaxy, sitting in isolation from other intelligent
but non-technological races, unaware of their existance, and NOT
seeing any intelligent technological space-based races around our
corner of the galaxy although argument seems to say we'd see them if
they existed. There are an awful lot of possible theories. I sure hope
we get giant space-based telescopes able to detect planets around
nearby stars in my lifetime, so I'll personally start to know some of
the answers. I hope we develop freezing technology so I can wake up a
century from now and see that we've started to get real answers. I
hope Stockman isn't the voice of money-for-space in the forseeable future!

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

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

04-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #34
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 34

Today's Topics:
			Vandeberg Shuttle launches
			    what's the number?
		    Shuttle Electrophoresis Experiment
		  what are short term space industries?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  3 Nov 1982 at 1202-CST
From: kjm@UTEXAS-11
Subject: Vandeberg Shuttle launches
To: DAUL@OFFICE
cc: space@mit-mc


	"...I realize that these flights will be military and so
	 the public has no business watching."

Why should the general public not be allowed to view the launches?
After all, we do pay for them. Furthermore, I fail to see what
critical information a spy could possibly glean from a distance
of several miles.

				Ken Montgomery
				kjm@utexas-11

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

Date: 17 Oct 82 16:53:46-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!stocker at Ucb-C70
Subject: what's the number?

a 900 number for listening in on the shuttle was mentioned here recently,
can someone enlighten those of us who don't know as to what it is?

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

Date:  3 Nov 1982 at 2328-CST
From: pyle@UTEXAS-11
Subject: Shuttle Electrophoresis Experiment
To: space-enthusiasts@mit-mc

	I seem to recall that the electrophoresis experiment was to
determine if cells (kidney, I think) of different characteristics
could be separated using electrophoresis.  Zero g was needed since
gravity was the dominant force on the cells in earth-bound experiments
and could not be sufficiently overcome to affect separation.  

	Keith Pyle (pyle@utexas-11)

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

Date: 4 November 1982 05:51-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: what are short term space industries?
To: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO
cc: space at MIT-AI

Going by your message, it looks like industry really won't find it
worthwhile to do R&D in space (except as a tax writeoff or in tiny
quantities for PR) for a long time. If that's true, we need government
to fund space R&D right now and continuing until something profitable
has been proven to the satisfaction of industry. Otherwise these
little preliminary experiments flying on the STS currently will be
scientific curiosities, mostly for PR, that don't get developed into
money-making products for a LONG time.

Anybody have good rebuttal?

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

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

05-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #35
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 35

Today's Topics:
			     Military Launch
		   Shuttle flights from Vandenberg AFB
		      Meta-SETI -- Truth and reality
		       Re: Ain"t logic fun?? - (nf)
			   Re: Money for SETI?
		      Space Shuttle vs Space Science
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  4 Nov 1982 1225-EST
From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ
Subject: Military Launch
To: kjm at UTEXAS-11, space at MIT-MC, minsky at MIT-OZ

Gee.  If they have a war, won't they let us watch that, either?

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

Date:  4 Nov 1982 1326-EST
From: Roger H. Goun <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: Shuttle flights from Vandenberg AFB
To: space at MIT-MC

I recall reading that the new shuttle launch facility at Vandenberg AFB
will not be used exclusively for launching military payloads.  Any flight
which requires a polar orbit could be done better from there.

That being the case, I don't see any more reason to restrict access to
Vandenberg launches than to restrict access to Edwards AFB landings.

Can anyone speak with authority on the above?

					-- Roger

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

Date: 29 October 1982  20:52-EDT (Friday)
Sender: CARTER at RU-GREEN
From: Bob <Carter at RUTGERS>
To:   Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Cc:   Carter at RUTGERS, SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: Meta-SETI -- Truth and reality


    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>

			Mortimer Adler is simply brilliant. Applying
    his view of reality and truth to SETI, we have something like:
    Objective reality exists independent of our opinions, continues to
    be the same regardless of whether our opinions are correct (correspond
    to reality) or not, and would continue to be the same even if we
    didn't even think about it at all, even if we all died out. Either
    there is life elsewhere or there isn't. To discover this truth we must
    collect evidence, conduct experiments, argue and debate, and check out
    our reasoning ...

    Has anybody else heard of Mortimer Adler

Mortimer Adler is a familiar (if slightly peculiar) media
intellectual who has been part of the American scene for 50 years.
He is probably best known for his "Syntopticon," which was a part of
the "great books" movement.  The idea was, approximately, that the
best way to give the modern equivalent of a classical education is to
have the student read (largely in translation) full texts of the
central works of Western thought.  He "edited" the Encyclopedia
Brittanica for a while.

Adler can have an impressive television presence, and from time to
time he is rediscovered by someone in a new generation of uneducated
reporters.  The last such program I saw was an unattractive panegyric
by Bill Moyers, surely one of the least educated.

Adler's thought seems to consist largely of flogging the proposition
that solution to all intellectual problems is to be discovered in the
works of Aristotle.  He particularly likes the Metaphysics and the
Nichomachean Ethics.  He makes his case with vigor and intelligence,
but this does not alter the fact that the notion is, at least in the
view of some, fundamentally silly.

One reason it is thought so is that it is so completely divorced from
some developments that have taken place since Aristotle wrote.  The
scientific method, for example.  It is thus not surprising that a
person with good scientific training has never heard of Adler.  In
some company, he is not a convincing authority to cite in support of
one's views.  He is, however, both smart and reasonably respected,
vice Carl Sagan.

_Bob

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

Date: 3 Nov 82 12:02:27-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Ain"t logic fun?? - (nf)
Article-I.D.: watmath.3779
In-Reply-To: Article uiucdcs.944
Via:  Usenet; 4 Nov 82 18:51-PST

	Dolphins and killer whales, for starters.  (Proof is in the size
and convolution of the brain).  I don't know what the author was thinking
about for the third other intelligent species.
					Rick.

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

Date: 3 Nov 82 9:37:51-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!arwhite at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Money for SETI?
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.22
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4051
Via:  Usenet; 4 Nov 82 18:50-PST

It seems to me that every year we are better able to do things like search
for life out there.  If we were to discover it while it would be EXTREMELY
important we really wouldn't get anything out of it in the short run.
I think we should spend our money on the really important things like
space travel so that next century we can spend an equivalent amount and
turn out with a much better idea as to what is out there when we
are using much more advanced technology.

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

Date: 3 Nov 82 20:46:12-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!emil at Ucb-C70
Subject: Space Shuttle vs Space Science
Article-I.D.: rocheste.166
In-Reply-To: Article pur-phy.544
Via:  Usenet; 5 Nov 82 1:11-PST


   I pose the following questions:


1.  What percentage of NASA's budget is being consumed by the space shuttle?

2.  Should NASA relinquish control of the space shuttle to the Defense Dept
    and/or private industry?

3.  What exactly does NASA plan to do with a space station?

4.  Do we need a space station or just more robotic satellites?
 
5.  What plans does NASA have for planetary exploration in the rest of this
    century?

6.  Has NASA been so preoccupied with the shuttle to the exclusion of all 
    else?

7.  Is NASA's problem one of publicity?
    (the major networks seemed to have gotten bored with the shuttle in 
     just three flights.)

8.  Are NASA's problems due to the present government or are they symptoms
    of NASA's loss of vision in the mid-70's?


Most of these questions are not my own, but I would like to find out if
others have strong opinions on these matters.

In essence what I am posing is the question

    HAS NASA TRADED SPACE SCIENCE FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE?


						Emil Rainero
						(emil)


   
  
  

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

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

06-Nov-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #36
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 36

Today's Topics:
			 The Anthropic Principle
			What's new about Titan 34D
	     Re: Re: Pournelle's comment on explorati - (nf)
				  Alone?
			  STS Space-Lab Mission
       Re: Has NASA traded Space Science for the Space Shuttle??? 
		      Wanted: Space Station Ideas  
		  Re: Number of civilizations per galaxy
			     Alone newsgroup.
		STS-5 On Schedule -- Launch Time Released
			    Vandenburg flights
			   Vandenburg launches
			     Money for SPACE?
			     Money for SPACE?
			 radio signature of earth
			more on Galileo's drawings
			  Request Info on STS 5
			   binary disagreement
			Re: Request Info on STS 5
			Re: vanVandenburg flights
		   request for general shuttle schedule
			    Joe Blow in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 82 20:33:59-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: The Anthropic Principle

The article "The Anthropic Principle" by George Gale in the December 1981
Scientific American (That's the beer bubble issue) seems relevant to
the extraterrestrial civilization discussion. It concerns itself with
the inductions one might make concerning the nature of the universe,
given our knowledge of life on earth. I vacillate between thinking the
article is hogwash and thinking it's stating the obvious.

Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Date:  5 November 1982 1010-EST (Friday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: alice!sjb at UCB-C70
Subject: What's new about Titan 34D

From Flight International, 30-Oct-82, p. 1272:

	Martin Marietta builds Titan 34D, which features a longer 
	first stage and solid-propellant boosters than its Titan III
	predecessor.

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

Date: 29 Oct 82 22:28:56-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sytek!gi!arizona!purdue!ecn-ec.uiucdcs!mcdaniel at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Re: Pournelle's comment on explorati - (nf)

I believe that Heinlein pointed out another problem with this: emigration
would cause less pressure at home, so the birth rate would increase. If your
population is at equilibrium, and you start emigration, the birth rate will
increase to cover *all* of the emigration.
                              Apocalypstically yours,
                              Tim McDaniel
	                 ({decvax or ucbvax or harpo}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel)

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

Date: 4 Nov 82 19:03:47-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!fraley (Bob Fraley) at Ucb-C70
Subject: Alone?

The problem of possible intelligent societies whcih continues to bother me
is what we would do once we found one.  How would we communicate with them
in any meaningful way?  On earth, our intelligence is supposedly dwarfed
by that of whales, yet we hav not yet managed to communicate with them.
Sure, we have managed to train them to do our wishes, but we havn't
figured out how to find out what is important to them, how they percieve
the world, what makes them happy, or even if they relate to the notion of
happiness.  We don't know their perception of their society, or their
perception of us.  While they are not a technological society (as we think
of technology), there is some suggestion that we would have difficulty
communicating with any other intelligent race which we might encounter.
Anyone have any ideas on how such communication would be established?
Would it be appropriate to try to develop such skills by trying to
communicate with the race from "aquatic space"?

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

Date:  5 November 1982 1141-EST (Friday)
From: Kevin.Dowling at CMU-10A
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: STS Space-Lab Mission

Article in MetalWorking News From October:
KRUPP Devises 4 experiments for Space-Lab.
West Germany's Fried. Krupp GmbH, Essen, is one of several European companies
that will participate in the first manned Spcelab mission of the US Space 
Shuttle next month.
	The Krupp-designed experiments will cover these four areas:

Magnetic Material:
	Intermetallic manganese-bismuth is highly magnetic, but difficult
to produce on earth because of segregation. When solidified in the weightless 
environment of space, a finer grain structure and improved magnetic
properties can be achieved, A Krupp Spokesman said.

Mechanical Properties:
	A suspension of fine alumina particles in molten copper will be
studied as the basis of a model of inclusions in an alloy or metal. The 
weightlessness of space permits the material to solidify without
segregation. Under gravity, the big difference in weight between the
alumina and copper would cause the two substances to separate.

Metal Foams:
	The lack of surface tension in molten steel and other metals
has been found to be a barrier to the generation of metal foams.
Krupp plans to study this further in Zero-G.

Thermal conductivity:
	The rate at which some metals conduct heat is almost impossible to
determine exactly under terrestial conditions because of convection.
However, precise measurement is possible in space where there is no gravity,
and hence no convection. This data would be useful in the design of
metallurgical plants, a Krupp spokesman said.

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

Date: 05 Nov 1982 1024-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Re: Has NASA traded Space Science for the Space Shuttle??? 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

To answer your question simply, yes.  And for good reason.  It would 
be awfully nice if the government would pay for both and extensive
space science program and a shuttle program but unfortunately this
was not the case.  A choice had to be made.  And if the choice had
been space science to the exclusion of the shuttle, the government
probably would have cut NASA back to zero back in the early 70s.

As much as I love space science, if a choice had to be made, I am
glad they are going with the shuttle program.  The scientific
exploration of the solar system has been a fascinating program,
but poorly run, in my opinion.  There has been a definite lack
of structure in planetary exploration, and that weakness may be
what is holding it back.  Admittedly, the lack of structure may
be the result of funding problems, and thus beyond the control
of those in charge of the various programs, but it exists nonetheless.

The major cost of developing a probe mission is not building the
vehicle.  It is developing the mission team, building the mission
control facilities, designing the mission instrumentation, etc.
And it is precisely this mission-oriented attitude that leads
administrative people to believe that planetary exploration
is expensive.  Because it is.  If you do it that way.

Imagine what planetary science would be like if Voyager Mission
Control had been designed to handle dozens of probes, instead of
just two.  And if it could also have been used to control Viking probes
(instead of the just-as-expensive control complex for Viking that
was built).  If the probes themselves had been designed as general
purpose bus vehicles, instead of of one-shot special purpose devices.

Sure, it's harder, but look at the results.  We might have a planetary
program today.  If JPL wanted to study Venus, they would haul a bus
vehicle out of the warehouse, plug in the instruments they wanted
>>which are the only new designs necessary for each mission<<, and
try and get a shuttle launch.  When the Space Operation Center
is built, probes might be assembled there according to specifications
beamed up from the ground.  A minimal time to get a mission flying.

I admit there are probably good reasons why it wasn't done that way,
mostly involving money.  But I also suspect that a lot is due to the
Not Invented Here syndrome.  The shuttle is an example (NASAs first)
of a program designed to get away from a mission-oriented philosophy.
I maintain that they planetary program desperately needs to follow suit.

						--Tom

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

Date: 05 Nov 1982 1057-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Wanted: Space Station Ideas  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

    ---
    HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) - You may be better off than you are if NASA
decides to swing your idea from a star.
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is asking anyone
with an idea on how to use space stations to drop them a line.
    The space agency said it will finance the 16 best ideas to the tune
of about $25,000 each.
    Traditional uses have included servicing satellites, assembling
large space missions, carrying telescopes and processing materials.
    But many of those ideas come from people who have been in the space
program for years and the new program will let NASA hear from those
outside who have not had a chance to develop their ideas.
    For more information, write: Dr. Stephen Holt, NASA - Code MFA-13,
Washington, DC 20546, or call 202-755-8490.
    ---

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

Date: 2 Nov 82 13:13:05-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.els at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Number of civilizations per galaxy

    Logic doesn't quite provide the right answer.  Binaries in which either,
1: the primary and secondary are far apart (Alpha Cent., for example) ,or
2: the primary and secondary are very close (grazing, or nearly so),  have
appriciable regions where there could be stable planetary orbits.

                             els[Eric Strobel]
                             pur-ee!pur-phy!els

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

Date: 3 Nov 82 14:42:40-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxi!mhuxv!mhuxm!pyuxjj!colbert at Ucb-C70
Subject: Alone newsgroup.

How about making a newsgroup net.space.alone for this debate?
(It seems to be filling up net.space).

			Charles Colbert,
			pyuxjj!colbert

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

Date: 2 Nov 82 7:25:52-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: STS-5 On Schedule -- Launch Time Released

Flight software was loaded into the Columbia's computers yesterday,
and two spacesuits for the spacewalk of Joe Allen and William Lenoir.
NASA said that they have had no problems, and the preparations for
launch are on schedule.

The countdown for STS-5 is set to begin at 0300 EST on 7 November,
and launch is scheduled for 0719 EST on 11 November.

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

Date: 1 Nov 82 12:37:59-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekcrd!iddic!evp at Ucb-C70
Subject: Vandenburg flights

Shuttle flights from Vandenburg will all be polar shots. NASA at one time
considered polar shots from Canaveral, but there was no safe place to drop
the boosters or the orbiter in the event of an abort forward. The Vandenburg
shots will all go south over the water. For most trajectories, there
probably won't be too much of a view from L.A., because the orbiter will
be too far west of the coast by that time.


				Ed Post, Tektronix

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

Date: 1 Nov 82 15:56:52-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Vandenburg launches

All launches from Vandenburg take place in an arc between south and
west.  This is because the coast at this point runs northwest -
southeast, and range safety considerations require that the vehicle fly
over water as soon as possible after liftoff.  This is why polar
launches do not take place from Cape Canaveral.

For the sun-synchronous polar orbit, which is the most common type of
launch from Vandenburg, the launch azimuth is roughly 190 degrees, which
is slightly west of south.

Phil Karn

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

Date: 5 November 1982 20:14-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Money for SPACE?
To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!arwhite at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: 3 Nov 82 9:37:51-PST (Wed)
    From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!arwhite at Ucb-C70
    It seems to me that every year we are better able to do things like search
    for life out there.
I agree. It's like with computer/electronics, every year you get more
for your money. Any time you spend money, you wonder if you should
have saved it and bought twice as much for the same money a year
later. Of course carrying this to the extreme you never buy anything
because you're always waiting for something more cost-effective next
year. The optimum time to buy something is right when you need it, not
earlier (you don't get as much for your money), not later (you don't
get to use it in the meantime). Maybe discovering intelligent life
elsewhere in the Galaxy will give us the curiosity to develop space
instead of quarrel among ourselves, or maybe it'll give us a "common
enemy" to unite us. Thus maybe NOW would be a good time for SETI,
before the next generation of thermonuclear counterforce weapons.

Maybe last year we didn't have the methods and technology for SETI but
this year we do. Maybe we don't this year but will next year. We won't
know for sure until we actualy succeed, at which point we can look
back and say "gee, good thing that new algorithm was developed, it
made it possible" or "gee, why didn't we look last year, we could have
found ETI with equipment that existed then". - I think the best
approach is to spend a little each year, developing the skill, testing
the tools and getting an idea what we need to build next, while
improving (lowering) the upper bound on the amount of ETI that might
exist, until one year we find ETI (or exhaust the galaxy without
finding ETI).
    I think we should spend our money on the really important things like
    space travel so that next century we can spend an equivalent amount and
    turn out with a much better idea as to what is out there when we
    are using much more advanced technology.
I agree. Let's get people to stop wasting their money on alcoholic
beverages, cigarettes, pizza, and most of all thermonuclear weapons,
and instead have them spend the money on development of space travel
and space-based industry.

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

Date: 5 November 1982 20:14-EST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Money for SPACE?
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Hey, pizza seems a pretty good value to me.

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

Date: 31 Oct 82 20:19:11-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: radio signature of earth

This is a synopsis of "Eavesdropping: The Radio Signature of the Earth",
by W.T. Sullivan, S. Brown, and C. Wetherill in the 27 Jan 1978
issue of "Science".

The authors report on an extensive and thorough analysis of the
probable radio appearance of the earth from ~1 light year. The
principal conclusions:

1) The most distantly detectable radio emission is from BMEWS (Ballistic
Missile Early Warning System) radar. An Arecibo-like antenna could detect
it at ~18 light years.

2) The richest source of distantly detectable radio emission is UHF and
VHF TV broadcasting detectable at ~1.8 light years by Arecibo (carriers only,
program demodulation would require ~2e4 times the sensitivity.) The
authors analyze the appearance of about 2000 major stations due to scheduling,
geography, and diurnal and orbital motion of the earth. Broadcasts at
frequencies less than 20Mhz are contained by the ionosphere.

In the 27 October 1978 issue of "Science", there is a letter from
Carl Sagan arguing the implications for SETI policy. W.T. Sullivan,
in his reply, mentions that he had since learned of the U.S. Navy
Space Surveillance radar, which illuminates the sky from 0 to 33 degrees
for a period of about 7 seconds once a sidereal day. It would be detectable
at a distance of 60 light years by the Arecibo antenna.

I had erroneously recalled this article as being in Scientific American.
After an exhaustive search of the indexes from 1974, I turned to the
"Readers Guide to Periodical Literature" at my local library. This turned
out to be a great resource. I started looking under "Earth" before moving
to "Life on other planets", and finally finding it under "Interstellar
Communication". There were ~10 entries under this for 1978, many of them
reports of and comments on that "Science" article.

Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Date: 31 Oct 82 21:11:35-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: more on Galileo's drawings

The problem is not that I can't see as many stars as Galileo drew,
it is that I can see many that are not drawn which are brighter than
all the candidates for the drawn ones (this is in the Orion drawing.)
I think the answer does lie in the limitations of Galileo's telescope.
I found in "Galileo at Work" the statement that his telescope had a
field of view of 12 minutes of arc. This is on the order of 1/1000 the
angular area of the Orion drawing. His drawing was just not very thorough.
I think he found a few stars around the brightest (naked eye) ones and
drew them at disproportionately large distances from them, leaving out
many in the intervening areas.

There are two more drawings of the "Head of Orion" and the Praesepe
cluster, in addition to the belt and sword of Orion (what I am calling the
Orion drawing) and the Pleiades. I observed the Head of Orion and found
it to correspond to the drawing about as well as the Pleiades did to
theirs. Praesepe comes up too late so I'll see it in a month or so.

Galileo's telescope had a concave eyepiece which has the field of
view limited by a virtual exit pupil. The exit pupil is the image
of the objective formed by the eyepiece. With a modern eyepiece, this
image is real and is where the observer places the eye, so that all the
light gathered by the objective enters the eye. In this position it
does not limit the field of view, which is determined by other factors.
In Galileo's telescope the exit pupil fell behind the eyepiece near
the eyepiece focal point. One can gain an impression of this appearance
by holding one's eye at a distance of five or ten centimeters from
the eyepiece of a modern telescope.

Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Date: 1 Nov 82 13:11:10-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!pyuxbb!mb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Request Info on STS 5

I am thinking about going down to see the next flight of Columbia from
Cape Canaveral.  I need some information about the mission.
(1) Is liftoff scheduled for Nov. 11? (I think I remember that date.)
(2) How many days will the mission last?
(3) Will it land back at the Cape or at Edwards?
(4) Are there any special tips for watching this that I should know about?
    Any especially good or bad locations?
    Any need for special passes?

Thanks in advance,
Mike Burns
Bell Labs, Piscataway
201-981-6731

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

Date: 2 Nov 82 14:31:07-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!nsc!katic at Ucb-C70
Subject: binary disagreement

In regard to menlo70!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!fortune!megatest!sun!decwrl!decvax!cca\
!WMARTIN@OFFICE-8@sri-unix's assertion:

	1. Binary and multiple star systems are excluded, as they are
	unlikely to have habitable planets.  (I can see logic in this;
	planets in such systems are likely to be gobbled up by one of the
	stars, or be in eccentric orbits which cause wide variations in
	heat, or just receive too much radiation from all those suns.)
	That would make "Fp" much less than "~1".

Asimov had out an article in which he postulated that OUR system was a binary
system with no decrease in the habitable zone!  Consider the following, replace
Saturn with a body of ~10-20 Jupiter masses.  This is clearly large enough to be
a sun yetr clearly small enough to NOT unduly affect Earth's orbit.  While some
binary systems may have no habitable zone, it is also possible that others have
two!  This would obviously change Fp, but I don't know how much.  Any math
loving astronomers out there wish to give us a guess??

katic	(....!nsc!katic)

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

Date: 1 Nov 82 15:55:04-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Request Info on STS 5
Article-I.D.: alice.1046
Via:  Usenet; 5 Nov 82 21:55-PST

The liftoff is scheduled for 11 November.  I have not heard
what time though, but the last two or three have gone off
at 1000 or 1100 E?T.  The mission will be five days, and
it will land at EAFB.  If you have some good field glasses,
right across the lake would be a nice spot:  You get a nice
clear picture of the pad and the surrounding land and an
unobstructed view of the ascent.  Otherwise, you can't get
past the 3 mile limit (only press can get up that close,
as they are considered 'expendable' by NASA), due to
alluminum fallout.

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

Date: 1 Nov 82 13:13:49-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekid!richk at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: vanVandenburg flights
Article-I.D.: tekid.544
Via:  Usenet; 5 Nov 82 21:59-PST

Yes, the flights from Vandenburg will be polar shots.  The launches will
be to the south. (Lucky LA!)

I think all launches from the Western Test Center are polar and to the south
since there are no land masses between there and the Antartic for garbage to
fall on.  (Training ICBM launches are suborbital and to the west.)

Richard Kurschner
 ... !teklabs!tekid!richk

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

Date: 1 Nov 82 23:15:37-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!goutal at Ucb-C70
Subject: request for general shuttle schedule
Article-I.D.: decvax.324
Via:  Usenet; 5 Nov 82 22:07-PST

Can anyone post a table giving STS-#, craft's name, launch and return
dates, crew's names, and highlights of mission, starting with the first
one back whenever and going as far forward as we have?  Thanks.
-- Kenn (decvax!)goutal

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

Date: 1 Nov 82 23:27:08-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!goutal at Ucb-C70
Subject: Joe Blow in space
Article-I.D.: decvax.325
Via:  Usenet; 5 Nov 82 22:27-PST

I was reminded that I have wanted to ask this for some time
by the recent article inquiring about experiments which required the
presence on the shuttle of the scientist who owns the experiment.

Some time ago I ran across an article that gave the weight and the 
customer cost of some payload or other (on a shuttle).  It was a
commercial satellite, I believe, so it was the open-market price (not
just raw cost, necessarily), and the satellite weight was given in
tons.  I worked it out, and the cost of carrying a human sized payload
at that rate would be about the same as a good-sized vacation, like
a Caribbean cruise or tour of Europe.  Strictly out of ignorant
curiosity, I would like to ask:  what equipment would be necessary to
support a single person (passenger) in addition to the crew, and what
would THAT cost, and on what basis?  Surely there must be something
about such a prospect that raises the cost to something absolutely
prohibitive, or people would have been bidding for payload space long
since (not me, mind you;  I'm just a humble programmer;  I'm thinking
of the those folks who drive Porsches and a couple of houses and
send their kids to med school all-expenses paid)!
-- Kenn (decvax!)goutal

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

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

07-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #37
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 37

Today's Topics:
				Not alone
			    Earth's Signatures
			     The Big Question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     6 Nov 82 20:12:25-EST (Sat)
From:     Gene Spafford <spaf.gatech@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
Subject:  Not alone
Via:  GATech; 6 Nov 82 22:14-EST

I've just finished reading over the last 15 or so Space digests.
I thought I'd subject you all to some comments:

1) If there is other life out there would the fact that they haven't
   communicated with us prove their intelligence?  As a race we seem
   very quick to attack our own kind for differences as small as
   skin color, language, and societal economic structure.  Would *you*
   want to associate with us?  Announce yourself to a society
   here on earth --- stick your hand into a hornet's nest; think
   you'll get anything worth the effort?

   If I were from another world (interesting thought -- how do you
   know I'm not?) I'm not sure I'd classify humanity as intelligent
   although there are some individuals that come close.  And I sure
   would do everything possible to keep out of reach and not let
   humans know that "we" exist.

2) I think pizza is worthwhile.  Heck, they'll even deliver it to
   my door.  I don't even have to leave my living room.  Of course,
   I do have to get up and answer the door....

   Seriously though, people are more likely to spend money on pizza
   than rockets for the simple reason that they can leave off the
   anchovies on their part, and they get the results in under half an
   hour.  Give me options and a quick return and I'll be glad to
   finance space research.  Just don't schedule any launches during
   my bowling night, or so it will conflict with Gilligan's Island.
   Priorities, ya know?

   Right.  We need some painless and/or interesting method to get people
   to contribute to some future thinking.  Maybe we could launch
   something each week instead of watching the NFL.  Hell, for the
   amount that the players and owners are arguing about, how many
   shuttle launches could we make?

   If each video game were to have a $.10 tax per play for NASA, we
   might be ready with funds for a space colony in a year.  Anybody
   out there buy home video cartridges from Atari?  Notice their
   little comic books that they include with the games?  They have
   Atari pictured as some huge corporation which develops a
   space probe.  Could it be that they're actually *up to something*?
   I, for one, will hone my skills in front of the video screen for
   when they start looking for pilots.

3) Some issues back, Hans Moravec said, "Those that choose to stay
   deserve what they get, whatever that may be."  No one commented
   on that.  Why?

   Why should we suppose that those who wish to stay behind are
   any less than those who would choose to go?  And what about
   those who simply cannot go?  I may choose to stay (if an alternative
   ever gets offered).  Why should I deserve some dubious fate
   as a result?  Perhaps we'd be better off sending the annoying
   ones away.  Let's not finance trips to Mars, let's send some
   people to visit Sol.  I can make some suggestions for the
   first crew.

   I look forward to being around to see some kind of space travel
   and residences away from Earth's surface.  I want that to be to
   the benefit of mankind, wherever mankind may be scattered.
   We already have too many artificial divisions and "classes."
   I believe that the ability to choose our own destinies is an
   important thing to have.  I don't want my children to have to
   go live on Callisto because that is their only real choice.

4) Why is it that every time I see someone talking about funds for
   space exploration, someone else shows a picture of some poor
   starving waife in Ghetto, USA?  Why don't we start showing those
   same pictures every time someone starts talking about MX missiles,
   or about sending some South American martinet another 30 millon
   dollars to equip his army so as to more efficiently murder
   the farmers and guard the coca crop?  Entropy at work here ---
   it is so much easier to build things with which to destroy than
   it is to build a future. Dense pack refers to politicians.

5) (Actually, 1 again).  What is intelligence?  Someone remarked
   that we can't communicate with whales.  Maybe that's because
   they don't want to, not because they aren't able.  They don't
   have "technology"  (define that too) but neither do they have
   to worry about nuking themselves, or killing themselves with 
   their own wastes.  This is an old argument, but might it be
   that true intelligence is learning to live in harmony with
   one's own environment, limit population to reasonable levels,
   and seek for answers within oneself?  Somebody was (seeming to)
   disparage Zen in an earlier message.  We should be very, very
   careful when we profess to know the answers when we can't
   even be sure we know the questions.  42.


Open for flames,
Gene 

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

Date:  6 Nov 1982 2018-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Earth's Signatures
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: hpm at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161



From Hans Moravec's 5 Nov message:  <quote> In the 27 October 1978 issue
of  "Science",  there  is  a  letter  from  Carl  Sagan  arguing   the
implications  for SETI policy.  W.T.  Sullivan, in his reply, mentions
that he had since learned of the U.S.  Navy Space Surveillance  radar,
which illuminates the sky from 0 to 33 degrees for a period of about 7
seconds once a sidereal day.  It would be detectable at a distance  of
60 light years by the Arecibo antenna.    <unquote>


     If (emphasis on IF) the 60 light year  figure  is  correct,  then
it's important to understand that the radiation time is much more than
the 7 seconds each sidereal day, and the illuminated area is less than
the 0 to 33 degrees.

     The Naval Space Surveillance System (NAVSPASUR) is an element  of
NORAD's Space Detection and Tracking System (SPADATS).  As such, it is
in nearly continuous operation.

     The  energy  is  in  a  "fence" that is very narrow in its north-
south dimension, but wider than the U.S.  in the east-west  dimension.
The  energy  fence  lies  along a great circle that passes through San
Diego, CA, and Savannah, GA.  Hence,  the  energy  is  AT  33  degrees
north.

     This is accomplished by a series of transmitters (and  receivers,
but  the  receivers  aren't of interest in the "signatures from earth"
context) located along this 33 degree latitude great circle.  The main
transmitter  radiates  810  kilowatts  of continuos wave UHF from Lake
Kickapoo, TX.  Transmitters located at  Gila  River,  AZ,  and  Jordan
Lake,  AL,  each  radiate  45 kw of UHF to "reinforce" the ends of the
"fence".

     When  you  consider the nearly continuous operation, and the fact
that this orb rotates at 1 rev per 24 hours,  IF  the  60  light  year
figure  is  right,  we  must  look  a lot like a big UHF lighthouse or
airport beacon.

     How  long  have  we been operating this beacon?  In Aug 1958, the
system was up with just one transmitter (the big one at  Jordan  Lake)
and one receiver.  In February, 1959, it was a two transmitter system,
and on 1 June 1959, the present configuration was operating.

     If  we  consider  the  earliest  operation (1958), that signal is
presently only 24 light  years  from  earth  (give  or  take  3  light
months),  so  it'll be another 36 years before those alien versions of
the Arecibo out there at 60 light years will get their first flash.

    Also  (and  I  don't know if this makes a difference in space loss
and therefore range), the original system was VHF.  The change to  UHF
(called  an  upgrade, so I assume that implies an improvement) came in
1965.

     If anyone (anything) does call back, I wonder if we'll see (hear)
it at Arecibo, or if the returned signal will cleverly be the same  as
the outgoing signal (216.980 mHz) and therefore be heard by NAVSPASUR.
(Who says the military's not doing its part?)

Regards,

Dennis
-------

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

Date: 7 November 1982 02:51-EST
From: Bill Gosper <RWG at MIT-MC>
Subject: The Big Question
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: dbl at SU-AI

Before Aloneness get exiled from Space (where else is there?), I wanna
get in two licks.  From issue 21, 21 Oct:
    DNA may have a lot of backup and error correction, but it is programed to
    mutate. Any DNA which wasn't able to mutate went into the bit bucket
    long ago. If you want a machine to mutate you have to programe it to.
    DNA is programed so that changes have a significant probability of making
    sense.
                                          John White
The only other allegation of nonrandom mutation I have seen is Doug Lenat's
chapter "Biological Evolution Heuristics Used to Generate Plausible Mutations,"
in the about-to-be-published proceedings of a conference on learning
given at Pittsburgh two years ago.  (Editors:  Carbonel(l?), Michalski,
Mitchel.)  Twenty very stimulating pages.  Anybody (e.g. J White) got other
references?

Re planets of binary stars:  I've heard (sorry, no refs) that planets are
just a condensing star's way of shedding angular momentum.  With multiple
stars, this reason for planet formation is removed, and thus multiple stars
might not have planets.  But in "light" of Jupiter, this claim seems to need
weakening to require commensurate masses of the dominant companions.

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

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

08-Nov-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #38
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 38

Today's Topics:
			Those that choose to stay 
		 anthropic principle, retransmit attempt
			 radio signature of earth
				  Alone?
			  STS Space-Lab Mission
       Re: Has NASA traded Space Science for the Space Shuttle??? 
	  Not alone --> funding space activities by special tax
				Not alone
			    Earth's Signatures
		       Earth's Signatures (et else)
		    STS magnetic-materials experiment
		      Extraterrestrial Intelligence
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 07 Nov 1982 0414-PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Those that choose to stay 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Ok, those that choose to go deserve what they get, too.  I'm a great
believer in personal responsibility for one's fate.  The main difference
between the stayers and the goers is that there's a lot more to go to
than to stay at.  The main (deserved) thing those that choose to stay
get is all those others who also choose to stay.

The message reporting the Sagan letter was not from me, but
From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70  i.e.  Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Date: 7 November 1982 08:35-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: anthropic principle, retransmit attempt
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think your argument about population filling any void caused by
emigration applies only when natural forces (disease, preditors,
starvation) limit population. Animals produce many more young than are
needed to replace the adults, and most die off. When they're
overcrowded, there's less food and more disease, more die off, and the
overcrowding is relieved. When they're underpopulated, there's more
food, fewer die off, and the void is filled. But we humans have
invented medicine and welfare to keep people living when they should
naturally die, allowing us to become overpopulated without death
increasing enough to bring us back to normal population levels. In
technologically advanced countries we've compensated by lowering our
birth race due to intellectual and psychological reasons. If we
emigrate to space, and don't change our reasons for lowering our birth
rate, I see no reason we should automatically fill the population
void. Thus it's quite possible in my opinion that the birth rate may
remain low and the population problem may actually be solved.

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

Date: 7 November 1982 08:48-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: radio signature of earth
To: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Let's be conservative and say THEY are just like us except they
haven't invented that kind of radar that is visible for 60 lightyears,
just the normal kind that's visible for 12 lightyears, and THEY have
an antenna just like Arrecibo (sp?).

I suggest we do a quick survey of each star within 12 light years to
see if any of them seem to be emitting radar energy. How many stars is
that, abut ten or twenty? (Somebody have a complete list? I seem to
recall names like Epsilon Eridani and Tau Ceti and Barnard's star in
addition to the two well-known ones of Alpha Centauri (with
companions) and Sirius (with companions), but those might be beyond 12 LY.
Anybody have a complete list handy? If this fails to detect any of
THEM, then I'd be willing to postpone additional funding for a couple
years if the budget is really tight.
<opinion on space budget by REM>

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

Date: 7 November 1982 09:52-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Alone?
To: hplabs!fraley at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I have some comments on your question.
I think we should continue trying to communicate with other
intelligent species on our own planet, not just whales, but with more
effort. First we need to find an interface between them and us that
has enough bandwidth to avoid frustration. Finding a way some animal
can use a computer terminal would be one way. Maybe gorillas and
chimps could type if the keyboard had large keys. Maybe whales and
dolphins could use different sound frequencies for the different keys.
Maybe octopusses could put one sucker on each key if the keys were in
one long row instead of in rows and columns. In the other direction, I
figure all of them could view a CRT about the same as we do. Having
established both keyboad-input and CRT-output, we could then teach
them simple modes of communication, experimenting to see what they
learn easily and what seems to give them too much trouble. Eventually
I'd like to see some of them on this network.

To:SPACE-REQUEST
From:Flipper@UCLA-MarineLand

I WANT BE MEMBER THIS DISCUSSION NETWORK.
PLEASE INCLUDE ME.

One problem with communicating with sea critters and apes is that we
don't have much incentive. They would tell us about places we already
know about, like the oceans, and most of the time we choose to find
the info ourselves instead of taking the pain to ask the sea critters.
But with a civilization on another planet, they'd be telling us about
places we can't learn about any other way. We'd thus be forced to
learn to communicate. Also they'd tell us about technological things
that we're interested in. Intelligent but non-technological critters
are in some ways more alien to us than more distant technological
critters (if they exist). We ought to try to communicate with both
kinds of critters, local but non-technological, and remote but
technological. As for what useful stuff we might learn, we won't know
until we communicate. It's sort of like pure science. First you do
preliminary research in the field, and only then do you make some
initial guess what it might be useful for. Who could have imagined in
1920 that research into materials that aren't quite insulators but
aren't conductors either could result in building amplifying devices
that can be made so compact that a whole computing device could be
built out of them to fit on your wrist? We have no idea what new ideas
we may get from the Tau Cetians, but we'll get a lot (if they exist
and we establish communication).

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

Date: 7 November 1982 10:01-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: STS Space-Lab Mission
To: Kevin.Dowling at CMU-10A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Of the four zero-gee non-segregation mixing-materials experiments,
three would seem to be mostly of scientific interest only, but the
metal foam experiment is especially interesting to me because I've
been advocating hydrogen-filled foam-steel as a way to deliver fuel to
Earth, without realizing the lack of surface tension makes that
material impossible to create on Earth. It'll be very interesting to
see if it or something effective similar (any trapping of large
quantities of hydrogen in a common metal like iron) can be made in
zero-gee.

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

Date: 7 November 1982 10:09-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Has NASA traded Space Science for the Space Shuttle??? 
To: TAW at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

That sounds like a good argument for:
 (1) a space operations center, to hold the spare parts and rocket
  engines and instruments and communications equipment and fasteners
  to assemble various missions to the planets and asteroids, as well
  as the personnel to do the assembly if it takes longer than two
  weeks (the duration of one STS flight).
 (2) an ion rocket or solar sail system to make missions to remote
  places fast and cheap.
in addition to the current STS program.

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

Date: 7 November 1982 10:24-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Not alone --> funding space activities by special tax
To: spaf.gatech at UDEL-RELAY
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Video games currently cost $.25/play so I think a tax of $.10 would be
much too steep. How about $.02/play? Let me make a wild guess, 1000
video-game arcades in the USA, each has 20 machines, each gets 20
players per night, that's 1000 * 20 * 20 * $.02 = $8000/day, or
$240,000/month. I forget how much a shuttle flight costs. If it's a
million dollars, then this 2-cent tax will fund one flight every four
months. Can somebody supply more accurate figures on the total playage
of arcade (pay-per-game) video games and cost of STS flights and come
up with a better estimate of the rate at which STS flights can be
totally funded by my proposed tiny tax?

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

Date: 7 November 1982 10:35-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Not alone
To: spaf.gatech at UDEL-RELAY
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Given the choice between learning to live in harmony with tiny part of
nature on a tiny planet around a small star that will go nova in about
5-10 billion years, and learning how to lift ourselves out of that
gravitational well and survive in space so as to live beyond the death
of that star and maybe eventually live in harmony with the whole
galaxy or even the whole Virgo Supercluster of galaxies, I'll choose
the latter. I don't think Zen is the answer.

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

Date: 7 November 1982 10:41-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Earth's Signatures
To: DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, HPM at MIT-MC

If the signal is emitted along the 33-north parallel of latitude, then
it isn't a great circle, and it's a fixed-point with respect to
Earth's rotation so it's not a lighthouse, on continously if you
happen to be in just the right direction and off otherwise. Are there
*any* nearby stars in just the right direction?

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

Date:  7 Nov 1982 1247-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Earth's Signatures (et else)
To: space at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

Several things:

1.  The NAVSPASUR radiation is actually along an arc that is part of a
great  circle  that cuts San Diego and Savannah, so i should have said
"roughly" along the 33rd parallel.  NAVSPASUR transmits  straight  up,
therefore  straight  down  is back toward the Earth's center.  In that
regard, it's like a lighthouse with a 33 degree uptilt  to  its  beam.
If  you  happen to be at the right angle (and at the right time?), you
could get a flash every 24 hours.  Anyone care to do the math?  The 33
degree  uptilt  of  the  energy  fence, the 23 degree obliquity of the
ecliptic (earth tilt), and whatever tilt our  solar  system  has  with
respect  to  the rest of the Orion arm of our galaxy?  (No sense going
any further than that with a 60 light-year transmitter.)

2.   I  incorrectly  said,  in my previous message, that I was quoting
from Hans Moravec's msg.  I was, in  fact,  quoting  from  Lew  Mammel
Jr.'s  message.   Sorry....the  error  was due to a convolution in the
universe (i.e., I had my paper folded funny).

3.   I  realize  this isn't the Science Fiction list, but those of you
mentioning that whales might be choosing not to  communicate  with  us
would  probably enjoy Alan Dean Foster's treatment of this idea in his
book "Cachalot".

4.   I submit that we should be careful refering to humans as a single
("intelligent") group.  I have been of the  opinion,  for  quite  some
time, that we have two distinct species here that both look human, but
that one (the subspecies, perhaps) is markedly different.   There  are
things  which  only  the  subspecies is capable of, and the rest of us
cannot even begin to empathize with or comprehend, let alone  consider
doing.   Three quick examples from a much larger list:  brutal rape of
an infant; cyanide in Tylenol; tainted Halloween candy.

5.   I think I still know someone at Vandenberg AFB who should be able
to tell the open/closed base policy for launches.  If I can  get  that
info, I'll put it on the list later.

Dennis
-------

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

Date: 7 November 1982 18:43-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: STS magnetic-materials experiment
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Forwarded with permission:

Date:  7 November 1982 1530-EST (Sunday)
From: Kevin.Dowling at CMU-10A
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>

I agree that the metallic foam is of more than scientific interest,
but I also think the magnetic material experimiment could be
of immense valuetoday samarium-cobalt magnets have the highest
flux density to mass ratio (at least of the commercially available
magnetic materials). The experiments to produce even more
powerful magnetic materials could result in lighter, even
more powerful motors. Direct drive robots (such as those at CMU and
the ones being developed at MIT) would be even more workable, 
not to mention general purpose motors.

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

Date:  8 Nov 1982 0138-EST
From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ
Subject: Extraterrestrial Intelligence
To: space at MIT-MC

When talking about extraterrestrial intelligence it seems that most people
assume that if we were to encounter ETI (either through direct contact or by
radio, etc.) that the ETI would be similar in intelligence, or perhaps somewhat
more intelligent.  Let us assume that galactic intelligence is normally
distributed, and that we represent something near its average.  If this is true,
then there SHOULD be at least a few extremely advanced races out there.  Our
solar system is about 4.5 billion years old and our ancestors crawled out of the
sea about 400 million years ago.  If someone else's ancestors made it out 401
million years ago, and they developed about as slowly as we did, then they would
be about a million years (more) advanced.
    The point is that it is not unreasonable to assume that there is going to be
a wide distribution of intelligence within a galaxy of even a few million solar
systems.  It is also reasonable to assume that our ability to detect ETI is a 
function of THEIR  intelligence, for the more intelligent a species, the greater
their capability to modify their environment.  Hence, it shouldn't be very 
difficult to detect at least the most intelligent ETI.
    John Ball ("Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Where Is Everybody?"  American
Scientist, 68: 656-663 (Nov/Dec 1980) ) proposes five hypotheses, (I quote,
p. 661-662), 


1). There is no ETI.
2). ETI is trying to talk to us or at least attract our attention, but we are not
    yet clever enough to hear or understand.
3). Advanced civilizations don't know that we're here.
4). Advanced civilizations know that we're here but they don't care; they're ig-
    noring us.
5). Advanced civilizations are discreetly and inconspicuously watching us but are
    not dabbling.

This (last hypothesis) is the zoo hypothesis [see Ball's paper for citations].
As Kupier and Morris point out, our culture may be our only resource of value
to ETI:

   Complete contact with a superior civilization (in which their store of 
   knowledge is made available to us) would abort [our] further development
   ...By intervening in out natural progress now, members of an extra-
   terrestrial society could easily extinguish the only resource on this planet
   that could be of any value to them....To establish that avoidance of open
   contact is not the most likely behavior, one would need to identify a
   resource that does not fall into this category.



Ball points out the extreme magnitude of out possible intellectual differences:


   ...our relationship with ETI is probably nothing like the relationship of a
primitive human tribe with technological man, which [is an] analogy [that] 
seems to be in the minds of many who propose ETI searches, but instead is more
like the relationship of an animal--a rather primitive animal--with mankind.
Now I can imagine talking with mammals and birds, indeed I've done it, although
the conversation was on a pretty low intellectual level.  But oysters? ... The
idea that we shall be welcomed as new members into the galactic community is as
unlikely as the idea that oysters will be welcomed as new members into the human
community.  We're probably not even edible.


(Me again):  For an excellent debate concerning ETI see the Physics Today of 
March 1982 (pp. 26-38).  This is a collection of letters generated by a previous
Physics Today article (April 1981, p.6) by (the infamous/famous) Frank Tipler.


Adam Mellis  (dvw.agm@mit-oz)
-------

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

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

09-Nov-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #39
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 39

Today's Topics:
	      Earth's Signatures (et else) --> human species
		       Viewing Vandenberg Launches
	    Arecibo antenna dimensions and 60 light-year range
			       video games
		    ad hoc definition of intelligence
			     Limits to growth
			 shuttle phone number    
			   Shuttle on Schedule
			      Human Species
			  Countdown on Schedule
			     Countdown Begins
		       PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 November 1982 06:33-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Earth's Signatures (et else) --> human species
To: DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I believe you're wrong about the Tylenol killer et al being of a
different species. Species is defined as a group of organisms
connected by the ability to interbreed, or equivalently in this case
by actual recent parent/offspring relationships closed under
transitivity. I'm rather sure that these killers are part of our very
own species, however much we'd like to dismiss them as being another
species. In fact, the genes that dispose them to do such things are in
a good percentage of us (maybe all of us). The killers are just a
variety not a separate species. -- This brings up a question, are we
able to communicate with other members of our own species? What would
a member of SPACE-ENTHUSISTS@MIT-MC have of mutual interest to discuss
with a New Guinea bushperson or a Zen Buddhist monk or a Valley Girl?
Let me extend my statement of an earlier message: we should experiment
with establishing meaningful communication with (1) Extra-Terrestials
(2) other intelligent species on our own planet (3) lesser species
such as insect colonies (Aunt Hillery) and raccoons, and (4) exotic
and handicapped humans. Imagine equipping a killer whale, a raccoon,
and a deaf&blind&quadraplegic (since birth) human with a computer
interface so they can all chat with each other and with us! If we can
do that, we might claim the ability to communicate with random ETs.
(Of course, with mathematician-ETs we merely have to transmit a
self-evident mathematical code, right?)

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

Date:  8 Nov 1982 1144-EST
From: John Sotos <SOTOS at NLM-MCS>
Subject: Viewing Vandenberg Launches
To: space at MIT-MC

	You may not have to get too close to the launch site to see
something.  Some friends of mine in Clearwater, Fla. have seen the shuttle
in flight a few seconds after liftoff.  And don't forget the night launches
(I think the first night launch is STS-6 this January).

John Sotos
(sotos@nlm-mcs)

   

-------

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

Date: 8 Nov 1982 09:49 PST
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Arecibo antenna dimensions and 60 light-year range
To: Space @ MIT-MC

Basing speculations on the size of the Arecibo dish may be shortsighted.  After
all, one argument for waiting a bit before funding SETI is that one might in
principle build immense, fragile, but perhaps steerable antenna structures in
space -- both single antennas and interferometers.  How far away would our
radio emissions be decipherable with a 10 km dish or phased array?

/John

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

Date:  8 Nov 1982 1043-PST
From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins )
Subject: video games
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 8-Nov-82 0303-PST

The estimate of video games if off by a few orders of magnitude.  There
are many more machines than you think and they slurp quarters much faster
than you think.  Your estimate of nationwide consumption more accurately
reflects the amount from one city.  Billions of dollars are spent per year
on these things tho I do not have exact figures at my fingertips.
David
-------

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

Date: 8 November 1982 18:44-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
To: HWC at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I guess I gotta disagree with you. There's a lot of difference between
a money sink and an investment in the future. Scientific experiments
in space now are for the most part the latter (investment, not sink).
The trouble is, the benefit is more likely to be for society and
mankind in general rather than channeled into one company's profits.
That makes it unlikely that a company will go beyond small cheap
experiments that may be motivated mostly by PR. But government can
invest for mankind in general. Look at this hypothetical analysis:

Suppose an investment in space results in 40-times payoff, i.e. with 1
unit investment the human race benefits 40 units. Compare a private
company versus the government making the investment. The USA invests 1
unit, the world gets back 40 units, the USA's share based on
population is about 2 units, the USA's share based on economy is more
like 5-10 units. Thus government investment pays off nicely.  A large
private company controlling 1% of the GNP invests 1 unit, the world
gets back 40 units, the USA's share is 5-10 units, the company's share
is 0.05 to 0.1 units, the company loses almost all its investment.
Thus the government can afford to invest in space but a private
company can't.

The two main reasons inhibiting a company are (1) until a patentable
product is achieved the company has no control over the profits,
indeed some other company that hasn't spent all its liquid assets on
the investment is in a BETTER position to market the product than the
original company that did the research, (2) research is risky with a
gigantic payoff if successful but small chance of success, and due to
taxes on profit the expected payoff after taxes is much less than the
expected payoff by simple computation, whereas the government doesn't
suffer this tax problem because it gets the taxes, even if some
private company steals the government's idea the government itself
gets lots of taxes from the profits as well as indirectly getting the
benefit from general improvement in the state of the economy.

This may change quickly (in a few years) for some things like
manufacturing insulin and other drugs, unless the method isn't
patentable and ALL the drug companies get equal rights to what one
company invested research money in. -- Does anybody else on this list
have some comments on the investment climate in space, on the
patentability of methods currently planned for experiment on STS-5, on
the likelihood of individual company investments being profitable soon?

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

Date: 8 Nov 82 10:03:22-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!nsc!katic at Ucb-C70
Subject: ad hoc definition of intelligence
Article-I.D.: nsc.244
Via:  Usenet; 8 Nov 82 15:06-PST

For the person who thru the comment something on the order of "three
other intelligent species on earth," I provide the following practical
definition of intelligence.  I submit that any race that does not use 
it is sutable for food.

the definition:

	an intelligent race is any race that is 1) capable and 2) willing
	to carry on discourse with other races.

Note that we humans (ree Washoe & others) apply.  Note that cetacaens don't.

katic	(....!nsc!katic)

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

Date: 8 November 1982 21:08-EST
From: Bill Gosper <RWG at MIT-MC>
Subject: Limits to growth
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

The volume of a colonization bubble can grow at most as t^3,
whereas self-reproduction can explode exponentially (a^t),
modulo resources.  But these resources (stellar matter) appear
to have *infinitesimal* average density, being fractally
clustered so as to be accessible only as t^1.29.  (Mandelbrot:
The Fractal Geometry of Nature.  W. H. Freeman, 1982.)

However, there are more reasons for all this to be moot than
our unimaginable unimaginativeness can even begin to overlook.

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

Date: 08 Nov 1982 2007-PST
From: Ron Goldman <ARG at SU-AI>
Subject: shuttle phone number    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a274  1949  08 Nov 82
AM-Shuttle Phone,280
Citizens Can Again Listen In On Astronauts
    BEDMINSTER, N.J. (AP) - A special telephone service again will allow
people to listen to conversations between astronauts on the Columbia
space shuttle and ground control.
    Callers virtually worldwide will be able to use special numbers for
the service offered by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and American Telephone & Telegraph Co. for the
shuttle's fifth mission, to begin Thursday.
    ''You're connected automatically and immediately,'' said Carolyn
Zachary, spokeswoman for AT&T's Long Lines Department here.
    From phones in the United States, the number to call is
900-410-6272.
    When the service was offered to residents of the 50 states - during
the Columbia's seven-day mission from June 27 to July 4 - more than 1
million calls were made, she said.
    Calls averaged three minutes and netted $1.2 million for AT&T, she
said.
    Ms. Zachary said she believed peoples' interest in overhearing the
conversations stems from ''a desire to be in on history in the
making.''
    The service starts Thursday at 6:19 a.m. EST, an hour before the
scheduled launching.
    ''Each domestic call anywhere in the 50 states will cost 50 cents
for the first minute and 35 cents for each additional minute, plus
tax,'' she said, adding that callers may listen in for a maximum of
about 2 1/2 hours before being automatically disconnected.
    The calls cannot be made from Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean
because those countries did not wish to participate. The special
number in other countries can be obtained by calling local operators,
she said.
    
ap-ny-11-08 2244EST
***************

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

Date: 6 Nov 82 12:30:06-PST (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle on Schedule
Article-I.D.: alice.1067
Via:  Usenet; 8 Nov 82 20:17-PST

Preparations for the countdown for the launch of STS-5 were
right on schedule going into this morning.  The countdown
is scheduled to begin tomorrow morning, with the launch
set for 0719 EST Thursday, 11 November.  Eight hours after
launch, a SBS satellite will be ejected, and on the next
day, a Telsat satellite will be ejected.  Forty-five minutes
after each clears the cargo bay, with the shuttle turned
away, solid rocket engines will ignite and lift the satellites
into geosynchronous orbits.  On the 14th, mission specialists
Lenoir and Allen will make a joint space walk, America's first
in about nine years.  The shuttle is scheduled to land at
EAFB on the 16th.

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

Date:  8 Nov 1982 2105-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Human Species
To: rem at MIT-MC
cc: space at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

Quite  right.   The  subspecies  should  correctly  have been called a
subvariety.   Too  bad  the  genes  that  distinguish  the  subspecies
manifest  in  some people.  If the genes are in all of us, maybe those
of us who can't comprehend the unspeakable acts  of  the  other  group
have  some  sort of repressor genes as well.  I wonder which genes are
favored in intervariety interbreeding?  I wonder what the  long  range
results will be after many more generations.  Sobering thoughts!

A memeber of SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC might not have much of mutual
interest with a Zen Buddhist monk or a New Guinea bushperson; but keep
in mind not all of us on the list speak with a Boston accent.  Give me
a  call  if  you're  ever  in CA, and perhaps I can arrange for you to
collect some empirical data on communicating with a valley girl!   You
might  discover that they are really totally tubular and not as grodey
to the max as you might envision.  For sure.

(Tongue firmly in cheek after that last paragraph,)

Dennis
-------

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

Date: 7 Nov 82 15:49:56-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Countdown on Schedule
Article-I.D.: alice.1073
Via:  Usenet; 8 Nov 82 22:11-PST

The early phases of the fifth shuttle countdown were on schedule
today, as electrical power inside the orbiter was turned on and
the cargo bay doors were closed.

The launch window for this flight is forty minutes, the smallest
of any of the other four.

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

Date: 7 Nov 82 9:41:33-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Countdown Begins
Article-I.D.: alice.1070
Via:  Usenet; 8 Nov 82 22:49-PST

The call to stations was announce on time at 0300 EST today
and with that began the countdown to the launch of STS-5,
scheduled for 0719 EST on Thursday.  The first piece of
business on the countdown agenda is the checking of the
Columbia's electrical systems.

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

Date: 4 Nov 82 20:45:31-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at Ucb-C70
Subject: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses!
Article-I.D.: inuxd.202
Via:  Usenet; 9 Nov 82 1:01-PST

SENATOR PROXMIRE HAS WON ANOTHER TERM!  The space program weeps.

Senator Harrison Schmitt loses!  Double weeps!

Wisconsin, I understand--just cows and butter up there, and the
dairymen keep voting in their subsidies that we all have to pay...

But, New Mexico!  HIgh-tech desert, why oh why have you
deserted the strongest proponent of the programs that have kept
The Land of Enchantment one of the best places
to work?  Ah, I miss the great southwest, but I am severely
disappointed in my amigos.  My ten years as
a Neuvo Mexicano never prepared me for this turnabout.

--Arlan Andrews, once of Las Cruces and White Sands...

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

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

10-Nov-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #40
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 40

Today's Topics:
			Today's Countdown Schedule
		       STS-5 will break record    
			 Huge Soviet Rocket Test
			watching military launches
		 Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)
	       Re: ad hoc definition of intelligence - (nf)
			 Antimatter info request
			    How many quarters.
		       Viewing Vandenberg Launches
		  Re: Today's Countdown Schedule - (nf)
	       NASA Confident Shuttle Will Launch Thursday
			    Where is everyone?
		     Taxes, Video Games, and Ma Bell
			      Halleys Comet
			  Space shuttle history
			      Thank You Adam
			    Space junk threat
		 Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)
			Countdown Behind Schedule
			      Dial-a-Shuttle
			   the ultimate rocket
		      NASA Goes Ahead With Countdown
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 82 7:25:09-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Today's Countdown Schedule

Today's agenda for the preparations for Thursday's launch include
activation of the Columbia's fuel cells, pressurization of fuel
tanks, and a review of flight software.  Also on today's schedule:
washing Columbia's windows.

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

Date: 09 Nov 1982 0402-PST
From: Robert Maas <REM at SU-AI>
Subject: STS-5 will break record    
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC  

According to an AP story, this week's launch of STS-5 will be the
first time four people have ridden to space in a single spacecraft,
the previous record being three.

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

Date: 9 Nov 1982 13:25 EST
From: PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Huge Soviet Rocket Test
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

		HUGH SOVIET ROCKET COULD BOOST SPACE CITY

By Howard Benedict (AP)

MOSCOW  The world's most powerful space rocket, emblazoned with the red
star of the Soviet Union, is to be test-fired for the first time next
year, according to authoritative sources here.  The Soviets hope to to
perfect it by 1985 to hurl into orbit the 110-ton core of a mammoth manned
space station.

Soviet officials won't officially acknowledge that they are developing the
huge rocket, code named "G".  But they speak openly of their concept for
Cosmograd  or "city in the sky".

Sources  all of them involved in the nation's space program  provided a
rough outline, and a few details, of the massive project that has long
been a Soviet dream.

It would be occupied year in, year out, by rotating crews of medical
researches, astronomers, workers making drugs and other materials,
satellite repairman and cosmonauts conducting reconnaissance and other
military chores.

Some would inhabit this weightless world for perhaps years in long term
research projects.  Others would work on high-technology construction
crews, assembling manned and unmanned rockets destined for the planets and
other parts of the solar system.

The sources, who asked to remain unidentified, provided these statistics
about the "G" rocket:  It will stand more than 300 feet tall, generate
about 11 million pounds of liftoff thrust and be able to boost more than
300,000 pounds into orbit.

The largest rockets ever launched successfully were in America's Saturn 5
series, which propelled astronauts to the moon in the late 60's and early
70's before the series was retired.  Each rocket departed Earth on 7.5
million pounds of thrust and could carry more than 200,000 pounds into
space.

One official said the Soviet goal is to launch a 220,000 pound cylindrical
station in 1985 and to initially have 10 to 12 people on board, conducting
scientific and defense assignments.

American military analysts are concerned that the station could serve as a
launching platform for satellite destroying laser weapons.

Cosmonaut Konstantin Feoktistov, discussing space station plans without
going into dates or other details, said an initial platform could be
enlarged by adding modules.

"There will be observatory modules and whole plants for manufacturing
products in zero gravity," he said.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Air Force
want to build a large space station but so far have received only a vague
commitment from the Reagan administration and a few million dollars to
continue studies.

Success is by no means assured for the "G" rocket.

The Soviets have had problems in the past with a large booster.  Three
failures in as many launches in the late 60's and early 70's forced them
out of the man-to-the-moon race with the United States.

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

Date:  9 Nov 1982 1420-EST
From: Art Evans <Evans at CMU-20C>
Subject: watching military launches
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

In the Nov 8 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology on page 24, in a
sidebar on media coverage of a launch of a Titan 34D/IUS, this quote appears:
    One Air Force official said [Defense Secretary Caspar] Weinberger has
    decided that, in the future, all military space launches -- shuttle and
    Titan alike -- will be secret.

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

Date: 5 Nov 82 12:50:54-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)

Schmidt lost because the environmental PAC put a lot of money into
the campaign against him. He had one of the worst voting records on
environmental issues in the Senate.

Proxmire's campaign cost him $100. Is there intelligent life
in Wisconsin?

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

Date: 9 Nov 82 0:31:01-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!hamilton at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: ad hoc definition of intelligence - (nf)

not quite.  the dolphins may be the capable race, and WE the incapable...
	wayne ({decvax,ucbvax,harpo}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!)hamilton

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

Date:  9 Nov 1982 20:47:38 EST (Tuesday)
From: Roger Frye <frye at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Antimatter info request
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

Can anyone direct me to some high school level information on
antimatter?  Where can I find a (possibly higher level) discussion
of the current theories on why there should be more than we see
and where it might be?
 -Roger Frye

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

Date:  9 Nov 1982 1753-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: How many quarters.
To: wilkins at SRI-AI
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

A  recent  version  of  20-20  stated  that,  last  year, four billion
quarters (one billion dollars) were fed to arcade type video games.  A
very  small  tax  on  those  quarters  would provide a sizable income.
Unfortunately, it would be hard to attach  that  tax  to  space  money
specifically.   The  windfall  would probably fall into some other tax
pool and get divied up among some of those uses for tax  dollars  that
we all know and love so well.

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

Date:  9 Nov 1982 1757-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Viewing Vandenberg Launches
To: sotos at NLM-MCS
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

Good point John.

Last time I was at Vandenberg, I drove from Lompoc (just outside
the gate) east to Santa Maria.  The road travels up and over
a small range between the two cities.  I don't know for sure,
since it was foggy when I made the return drive, but I suspect
the view of Vandenberg from anywhere along the west face of that
incline would provide superb viewing.

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

Date: 9 Nov 82 0:27:49-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!hamilton at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Today's Countdown Schedule - (nf)

they gonna check the oil, too?

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

Date: 9 Nov 82 7:24:26-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: NASA Confident Shuttle Will Launch Thursday

Despite yesterday's problem, NASA is confident that the Columbia
will launch on time on Thursday.  The trouble, a small leak in
a helium tank in one of the steering jet regulators, was termed
small enough to allow the system to be used during ascent.  The
faulty unit was turned off and a backup unit activated.  Engineers
were evaluating the situation last night, and NASA will make a
decision today whether to go ahead with the launch or replace the
unit, which would cause a delay of several weeks, as the shuttle
would have to be moved back to its hangar.

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

Date: 8 Nov 82 8:20:31-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Where is everyone?

	I havn't heard a think on this net for over a week. Has everyone
been teleported off this chunk of rock?

			Fred

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

Date: 9 November 1982 22:00-EST
From: Stewart Cobb <HSC at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Taxes, Video Games, and Ma Bell
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

   There are literally millions of video games in this country, some
averaging a quarter every few minutes, 24 hours a day.  A penny-a-game
tax would probably double NASA's budget.  However, there are
difficulties in implementing such a tax.  There's never before been a
national sales tax (which is what this amounts to, in a limited way)
because the bureaucratic hassles are tremendous.  Besides, it would
never get passed -- it's not justifiable, except to space freeks like
us.

   There is another idea, however, for giving NASA some additional
funds -- one that is justifiable.  Ma Bell has made almost $2 million
off the shuttle, without paying NASA a cent (as far as I know).  NASA
has been providing Bell with the Shuttle audio signal gratis, and Bell
has made all of its money just moving the signal around.  Why should
Ma Bell get all the money?  After all, it's the audio signal people
are really paying for, not the phone connection itself.  Suppose NASA
were to charge Bell a user fee for their hookup, to help defray both
the costs of the hookup itself and the costs of developing the vehicle
that everyone wants to hear?  Or, if that can't be worked out, why
doesn't NASA make the signal available to anyone who wants to hear it,
by broadcasting it on one of the shortwave radio bands?  Radio Moscow
mentions the cosmonauts in Salyut 7 almost every night -- wouldn't it
be nice to have the Shuttle on the next frequency over?

                                Tired of paying Ma,
                                Stewart (hsc at mit-mc)

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

Date: 8 Nov 82 14:18:19-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Halleys Comet

Anybody know what the latest news on this faint little object is???

					Ron Meyer
					inuxa!rrm
					Bell labs - Indy 

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

Date:  9 Nov 1982 2240-EST
From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ
Subject: Space shuttle history
To: space at MIT-MC

I remember hearing a rumor a couple of years ago about the
beginnings (actually, almost the endings) of the space
shuttle.  Supposedly, around 1973, the entire shuttle project
was up before Congress, and they, in their infinite wisdom,
were going to cancel it.  At the last moment, the Department
of Defense stepped in and volunteered to fund about 75% of
the shuttle costs.

Can anyone please provide me with some more history on the
nature of the origins of the shuttle program?

Adam Mellis (dvw.agm@mit-oz)

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

Date: 8 Nov 82 9:40:34-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Thank You Adam

	I for one would like to thank Adam L. Bushbaum for
posting his articles on Columbia. With so little news coverage
this net is the only place I can find current information about
how things are going.  Thank you Adam.

				Fred BTL-Indianapolis

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

Date:  9 Nov 1982 2351-EST
From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ
Subject: Space junk threat
To: space at MIT-MC

Last week, someone (my apologies, I forgot who it was) brought up the topic of
space debris, and mentioned something to the effect that one might encounter an
"occasional meteor."  This is a considerable understatement, and the true
nature of the problem is significantly different.

In the Sept. '82 Physics Today,  Reynolds, Rice, and Edgecombe, from Battelle
Columbus Labs (pp. 9+) point out that "the risk of collision for operating
spacecraft may not just become significant, but might even preclude using 
certain regions of space in the future due to an uncontrolled growth in the
amount of debris."

Unluckily for us, "the maximum potential collision risk occurs near 850 km
(460 nautical miles), the altitude favored for SUN-SYNCHRONOUS (emphasis
added) operations."

They indicate five (5) reasons as to why "preventing the growth of debris
is of the utmost importance", ...

1). Once debris is deposited in orbit it cannot easily be removed
    (Orbital speeds are on the order of 8 km/s)
2). The only natural mechanism reducing the amount of debris is orbital
    decay and Earth reentry caused by atmospheric drag.
    (This can take many years)
3). Orbital perturbations will randomize the distribution of the debris,
    making it extremely difficult to "pre-plan" to avoid the debris.
4). Because of large relative speeds between colliding objects (~8  km/s)
    even small debris pieces can cause extensive damage.
5). ==> Once collisions begin to occur, there is a danger that 
    uncontrollable debris growth (cascading) will result in the near-Earth
    environment becoming too populated with debris to be usable. (!)


They isolate a further problem when they note that "the minimum size of an
object that can be tracked using ground-based equipment is much larger than
the smallest object capable of causing damage to an operating spacecraft."

They note that collision avoidance systems and impact protection ("bumpers")
cannot solve the problem, and that the situation is rapidly approaching
a critical period:  We must consider the on-orbit debris hazards caused by
anti-satellite operations.

They conclude with an overview of policy recommendations.

Particularly interesting note:  "The USSR, in its recent manned space-station
program, reportedly has been dumping garbage and other items overboard. 
These items have been observeds from the ground."

Adam Mellis   (dvw.agm@mit-oz)

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

Date: 8 Nov 82 16:42:10-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxw!thor at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ihuxw.259
In-Reply-To: Article uiucdcs.971
Via:  Usenet; 9 Nov 82 22:18-PST

Regarding the rather obnoxious question of whether there is intelligent
life in Wisconsin, let me answer yes. Let me also remind you that the
task of a senator (or rep to congress) is to represent the needs of
his or her constituents. Very few of Wisconsin's industries are connected
with the space program. (and I believe that has always been the case) So,
why should Proxmire push for money for space (sure in the long run the
benefits could be tremendous) now? The return on the investment in space
for Wisconsin would probably be small right now, however. And the
majority of the voters are concerned with immediate results (in Wisconsin,
in Florida, or in any other state!). Proxmire wants to keep his job
just like the rest of us. 
Let me also remind you as far as intelligence goes that Wisconsin
has one of the finest state University systems in the country. Furthermore,
many of the people reading this net may have been trained at those 
universities in Wisconsin.
By the way, we are not totally myopic. Wisconsin was the first state to
pass as a referendum, a measure to control the buildup of nuclear weapons.
I believe Wisconsin was also one of the first states to provide 
workmans compensation insurance. 
Hopefully, we on the net can refrain from further insults of this
type and at least attempt a good exchange of ideas.
                                         Mark Kohls
                                         UW-Milwaukee 1981
                                         Bell Labs
                                         Naperville

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

Date: 8 Nov 82 16:19:52-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Countdown Behind Schedule
Article-I.D.: alice.1075
Via:  Usenet; 9 Nov 82 23:26-PST

The STS-5 countdown fell seven hours behind schedule today when
a helium leak was detected in the regulators of one of the
Columbia's 44 small steering jets.  NASA, however, says that they
do not expect the problem to delay the launch, as there are 20
hours of hold time built into the countdown for just such
an occasion.  They expect the countdown to be on schedule by
tomorrow morning.

Weather for Thursday morning is expected to be very good.

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

Date: 8 Nov 82 23:43:18-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Dial-a-Shuttle
Article-I.D.: alice.1081
Via:  Usenet; 10 Nov 82 1:07-PST

People in the U.S. may once again call a special number, starting
at 0619 EST Thursday and continuing throughout STS-5, and listen
in on ground to shuttle communications and special NASA broadcasts
when none of the former are occurring.  The number is 900-410-6272

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

Date: 8 Nov 82 23:07:54-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70
Subject: the ultimate rocket
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2587
Via:  Usenet; 10 Nov 82 1:47-PST

A recent item in Science (15 Oct 1982, page 274) indicates that there
is now a strong suspicion that magnetic monopoles, if they exist, would
catalyze the (as-yet hypothetical) decay of the proton.  It has been
pointed out that the various Grand Unified Theories (the current hot
theories in particle physics) all predict that the magnetic monopole
would have a very odd structure.  In its core, circa 10**-30 cm across
(essentially a dimensionless point even on the subnuclear scale), one
finds conditions not seen elsewhere in the universe since the Big Bang:
the electromagnetic, nuclear, and weak forces are one and the same, and
various particles are similarly indistinguishable (for example, the
quark, electron, and neutrino are identical).  As one moves outward
from the core, the various stages of "symmetry breaking" last seen
instants after the Big Bang appear, until on the outside the only
remnant of the funniness inside is the magnetic field.

Now, the core of the monopole is so small that this would seem to be
of no practical significance.  However, quarks in particular turn out
to be able to interact with this core with a probability independent
of the size of the core.  Exactly what happens to such a quark depends
on the details of the particular G.U.T.  However, any theory which
allows for the decay of the proton also predicts that interaction with
a monopole core can transform a quark into an antiquark.  Thus, when
a monopole wanders into a proton (or neutron), one of the proton's
quarks dives into it, comes back out as an antiquark -- and the proton
explodes.  After assorted intermediate particles go their way, the
proton has been converted to energy (plus a scattering of neutrinos).
The monopole is unchanged.

The bad news is that astronomical evidence strongly suggests that
proton decay is impossible, monopoles are extremely infrequent, or
the as-yet-unsettled cross-section for the quark/monopole-core
reaction is very small.  If one assumes that proton decay is possible,
that the Cabrera event last spring was really a monopole, and that
the cross-section is something reasonable, one expects to see X-ray
emission from neutron stars with trapped monopoles, and we don't.
Given no X-rays, any sort of plausible cross-section, and proton decay
(which is not yet certain, but the early experiments have already given
some very suggestive results), the Cabrera event is ridiculously unlikely.
The puzzle is unsolved as yet.

The good news is that the various proton-decay experiments now being
set up will make excellent tests of this theory, because the passage
of a monopole through one of their detector chambers would be a truly
spectacular event.

The REALLY good news is, if the theories prove correct and the negative
astronomical evidence can be reconciled somehow, then monopoles are
catalysts for the direct conversion of matter to energy.  And quite
apart from its other uses, that's just what the doctor ordered for
powering starships.

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

Date: 9 Nov 82 15:33:26-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: NASA Goes Ahead With Countdown
Article-I.D.: alice.1084
Via:  Usenet; 10 Nov 82 2:56-PST

Bypassing flight rules that call for a mission scrub in the
case of a shuttle backup system failure, NASA today put
the countdown back on schedule by saying that the helium
leak in a regulator was small enough so as not to affect
normal (and above normal) operations.

Also today, workers loaded the Columbia's fuel cells with
oxygen and hydrogen.

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

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

11-Nov-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #41
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 41

Today's Topics:
		      Countdown Proceeding Smoothly
			 Re: the ultimate rocket
		      Re: watching military launches
		 Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)
		   Re: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses!
		     Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses!
			  Landing Time Announced
			 Humans Suitable for Food
		 Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)
			  Our Friend, William P.
		     Shuttle Launch Crews & Schedule
			   Not Food For Thought
			      RCS regulator
			       a reference
			  Vandenberg Facilities
			       Living alone
		    Ad hoc definition of intelligence
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #39
		     Taxes, Video Games, and Ma Bell
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 82 17:28:45-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Countdown Proceeding Smoothly

After NASA's decision to continue with the launch of STS-5 despite the
helium leak, the countdown picked up again and has been running smoothly
since then.

For those of you wondering why the launch window for this flight is so
narrow (33 minutes) in comparison with other shuttle shots, one of the new
variables included in it is the fact that the shuttle must be at a
specific point at a specific time to launch the two satellites.

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

Date: 9 Nov 82 13:01:08-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!heliotis at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: the ultimate rocket

I had been taught that magneteic monopoles do not exist, by definition of
magnetism.  (Something about what happens to electric fields when
relativity is taken into account).  Can anyone confirm or contradict this?

					Jim Heliotis

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

Date: 10 Nov 82 3:57:46-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: watching military launches

The military has always been secretive about their launches.  They often
don't even tell people with a good reason to know.

Remember the case of the poor guy working alone in the Columbia's cockpit
late one night several days before a launch?  He felt the shuttle rumble
and heard a roar.  Thinking that the boosters had somehow ignited, the
poor guy dived for the escape hatch.  It turned out that the Air Force had
decided to launch a Titan III that evening from a nearby pad without
telling anybody.

I do know of one case where several non-military types I know found out
ahead of time about a Vandenburg launch.  They were preparing for a
scientific Delta launch when word came around to "stay away from pad
such-and-such during the following hours today".  Of course, they
immediately headed for the beach about a mile from the Titan launch pad,
and were subsequently treated to the experience of a Titan III flying
directly overhead.  It was said to rival any 4th of July display.  The MPs
stopped by to confiscate film, but didn't chase anybody away.

Phil Karn

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

Date: 9 Nov 82 20:07:44-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!uwvax!doug at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)

That is a problem with Wisconsin, Florida, every other state, big business
and lots of things - the desire for a quick return on investment.
Proxmire is short-sighted.  That, in my view, is not a compliment.  If it
is granted that space exploration is in *everyone's* long term interest
then voters, even here in Wisconsin, should push actively for it and throw
those out of office who try to stop it.

Nobody criticizes Proxmire for not pushing for space exploration.  It is
his attempts to actively thwart it that irks a lot of people.

Doug Lerner
doug@uwisc
Madison, Wisconsin

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

Date: 9 Nov 82 14:59:01-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses!

   I agree that it is unfair to expect a senator who represents
a state in which no space-related industry is based, to "push for
money for space". After all, the principle behind having a senate
in the first place was to protect the interests of the individual
states, by giving the states a part in deciding on legislation that
might affect them. Farsighted senators might see that the future
interests of their state are tied to the future of the human
race as a whole, and that (as I'm sure that most readers of this
newsgroup will agree)  is dependent on our moving out
into space >soon<; however, we can't >expect< a senator to be
far-sighted. Wisconsin-enthusiasts might note that space-enthusiasts
don't really begrudge them their dairy-subsidies, or argue that
Sen. Proxmire is wrong in obtaining thos subsidies. We don't argue
that it should be part of Proxmire's job to push for more funds
for space. We >do< feel that it >should not< be part of his job
to push for >less< funds for space!  It is hard to imagine how
Wisconsin will benefit from a continued low level of funding
for high-tech research throughout the country, unless the funds
diverted from the space program were to be funnelled directly into
Wisconsin's dairy program (which I'm sure they're not).
   While I'm sure that there is intelligent life in Wisconsin,
I'm not sure that it appreciates the havoc its elected representative
is wreaking with researchers in other states. It would be nice
if the hypothetical intelligent life would put a muzzle on its
senator, and keep him from attacking these researchers, who don't
have the resources to defend themselves from senators bent on
re-election at any cost (at any cost to anyone but himself,
that is to say).
   Before flaming on this topic, get yourself a copy of some of the
good senator's "Golden Fleece" press releases, and ask yourself
whether these are fair, reasoned arguments against government spending.
(I beleive a book titled "The Golden Fleece Awards" has been
published, listing some of these).
---Kieran A. Carroll
 ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

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

Date: 9 Nov 82 22:38:49-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses!

Jerry Pournelle said it all:  "Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is a
traitor to mankind!"

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

Date: 10 Nov 82 7:31:48-EST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Landing Time Announced

The shuttle will land on 16 November at 0725 PST (1025 EST) at EAFB.
Meanwhile, the countdown has been going smoothly since NASA's decision to
ignore the slight helium leak.  There is a bit of concern over rain at
EAFB, the primary landing site, but if it gets too bad, they can use the
concrete strip there that STS-4 landed on.

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

Date: 10 Nov 1982 1203-EST
From: Mike Inners  <INNERS at CMU-20C>
Subject: Humans Suitable for Food
To: Space at MIT-MC

Considering the (lack) of resources expended by humans toward carrying
on a discourse with other races, humans are not intelligent by the
definition proposed.  The amount of money spent on SETI, or research
into Cetacean communication is miniscule compared even to the space
program budget.  Only communication with other primates recieves
non-trivial funding.  Since willingness to commit resources is the
only reliable way I can think of to measure willingness to
communicate, I doubt we could be considered 'willing to carry on a
discourse'.

"...the rest of the book - it's a COOKBOOK!"

				-- Mike Inners

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

Date: 10 Nov 1982 1030-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

	Date: 5 Nov 82 12:50:54-PST (Fri)
	To: space at Mit-Mc
	From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat at Ucb-C70
	Subject: Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)

	Schmidt lost because the environmental PAC put a lot of money into
	the campaign against him. He had one of the worst voting records on
	environmental issues in the Senate.

It seems to me that the goals of the space movement and the environmental
movement are not at all incompatible, and probably very complementary.
And yet here is a case where they seemed to clash, and we lost.  Space
and environmental issues often seem to be on opposite sides of the fence,
and this is very unfortunate.  Perhaps this is because the space folk
are trying to encourage the government to keep doing something and the
environmental folk are trying to discourage the government from doing
something.  --Tom

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

Date: 10 Nov 1982 1332-EST
From: John Sotos <SOTOS at NLM-MCS>
Subject: Our Friend, William P.
To: space at MIT-MC

A few random points:

1) The number of astronauts in the Congress has not changed.  Jack Swigert
   of Apollo 13 was elected to the House by a 2:1 margin in Colorado.
   Sadly, he has a touch of lymphoma (I don't know which type) and
   polymyositis to boot.

2) Glenn for prez in '84?  He's big on research, but I've heard nothing
   specific re the space program.

3) Wisconsin folks seem rather touchy.

4) Regarding space debris, I read that NORAD recently pinpointed an
   orbiting glove!

5) Proxmire had a hair transplant a number of years ago.  Wouldn't it be
   wonderful to link some facet of hair transplantation and one of his
   Golden Fleece awards?  There's a project for some enterprising (no pun
   intended) high school/college student!

John Sotos

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

Date: 10 Nov 1982 1415-EST
From: John Sotos <SOTOS at NLM-MCS>
Subject: Shuttle Launch Crews & Schedule
To: space at MIT-MC

A few days ago someone on the net requested a listing of known shuttle
crews.  The following is from "STS-4 Press Information" published by
Rockwell International
Office of Public Relations
Space Transportation & Systems Group
12214 Lakewood Blvd.
Downey, CA  90241
(213) 922-1217, (213) 922-2066

 = = = = = = = =

STS-6 (January 1983 -- I think this is the first night launch)

	commander	Paul Weitz (Skylab 2 veteran)
	pilot		Karol Bobko (1969 group of astros (MOL))
	mssn spec	Story Musgrave, M.D. (1967 group, I think.)
			Donald Peterson (1969 group - MOL)

	This is the first flight of OV-099, the Challenger and the light-
	weight external tank.  No arm.  Two get-away-specials (GAS).

 = = = = = = = =

STS-7 (March 1983)

	commander	Robert Crippen (STS-1)
	pilot		Frederick Hauck (1978 group)
	mssn specs	Sally Ride (1978 group)
			John Fabian (1978 group)

	There it is folks, your first American woman in space.  This is
	another Challenger flight.

 = = = = = = = =

STS-8

	commander	Richard Truly (STS-2)
	pilot		Daniel Brandenstein (1978 group)
	mssn specs	Guion Bluford
			Dale Gardner

	Challenger again.  This is the first night launch.  Bluford will be
	the first black in space unless the Russians get propaganda hungry.

 = = = = = = = =

STS-9

	commander	John Young (Geminis 3 & 10, Apollos 10 & 16, STS-1)
	pilot		Brewster Shaw (1978 group)
	mssn specs	Robert Parker (1967 group)
			Owen Garriott (Skylab 3)

	Columbia this time.  John Young appointed himself to take Spacelab 1
	into orbit on this one.  The two payload specialists for this flight
	have been selected now.  Someone told me that the American is Byron
	Lichtenberg and the European is the German, though I ain't really
	sure.  Six folks on one flight!

 = = = = = = = =

That's it for assignments as of Aug. 1982.
A couple other notes:

STS-15 -- first flight of the Discovery
STS-26 -- first flight of the Atlantis
STS-1V -- first Vandenberg launch (between STS-33 and STS-34).  The Discovery
	will do the honors.

STS-10 -- Department of Defense payload
STS-11 -- ditto
STS-22 -- ditto
STS-25 -- ditto
STS-29 -- ditto
STS-32 -- ditto

STS-18 -- still has room for a payload as of June 1982
STS-19 -- Spacelab 3
STS-21 -- Spacelab 2 (sic)
STS-23 -- Space Telescope
STS-26 -- German Spacelab flight
STS-30 -- Galileo probe
STS-31 -- Spacelab 4 -- the dedicated life sciences mission (hurray!)
STS-42 -- Europe's Solar Polar satellite

The above are from another Rockwell document "Bound for Space: Assigned Cargo
for STS Missions 1982-1984"

Film at eleven.

John Sotos
(sotos@nlm-mcs)

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

Date: 10 Nov 1982 15:25:07 EST (Wednesday)
From: Roger Frye <frye at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Not Food For Thought

As a vegetarian, I submit that any species having members which
try to avoid being eaten should not be used as food.

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

Date: 10 Nov 1982 at 1451-CST
From: kjm@UTEXAS-11
Subject: RCS regulator

Is the word "regulator" intended to mean a regulator valve in the
RCS pressurization subsystem? If not, what exactly does it mean?

		KJM at utexas-11

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

Date: 10 Nov 1982 at 1623-CST
From: King Ables <ables@UTEXAS-11>
Subject: a reference

Can anybody give me a reference for Robert Bussard's work on his
interstellar ramjet idea?  The only reference I can find that seems
to be very useful is "Astronautica Acta 6" from 1960 but I can't
seem to locate a copy of it around here.  I would appreciate hearing
of other references that might be easier to find.  Thanks,
							-king

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

Date: 10 Nov 1982 1458-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Vandenberg Facilities
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

Please  don't cite this as official Air Force position; it is based on
conversation with one officer at VAFB, and he wasn't the guy in charge
in  this  area.   (The  guy in charge will be back next week--if I get
more info from him then, or something more nearly official,  I'll  put
it on this list next week.)

Unofficial firm rumor:

The  plans  folks  at  VAFB  expect  an  open  base  policy during STS
launches, and are currently working on how to set  up,  control,  etc.
etc.  a public viewing area for STS launches.

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

Date:     9 Nov 82 13:36:18-EST (Tue)
From:     Gene Spafford <spaf.gatech@UDel-Relay>
Subject:  Living alone

I'm not necessarily trying to push Zen or any other philosophy, but
aloneness is largely a state of mind, especially in some philosophies.
Perhaps we will achieve the ability to expand beyond our planetary
confines through some power of the mind rather than some technological
solution.  Perhaps that is why we do not detect any other life in our
region of space --- they've all evolved into something which is not
detectable by our technology.  They've gone "away."

As I said before, we should be careful not to think we know the answers
when we aren't even sure of the question.  You said something about being
alone....on a planet full of people with all of their talents and
potentials?  If you cannot find company in that group do you really think
you could be more comfortable light years away?  Perhaps you have an
unfulfilled need to discuss something with a two-headed intelligent
eggplant (with green fur) from Cygnus?  My belief is that one can only
find fulfillment within oneself.

Furthermore, you mention the "imminent" demise of our Sun some billions of
years hence.  I think that is a far less pressing problem than whether we
will survive the next 10 years here.  We can create colonies in space or
on other worlds, perhaps, but until we can discover (and solve) why we are
so self-destructive, why we fear and mistrust each other, and why we
disregard our environment (both personal and global), all that we will
succeed in doing is to carry those problems with us.

I guess the point I'm trying to make involves an examination of exactly
*why* one would look spaceward.  (Note:  I'm arguing a point I don't
necessarily agree with.  That may be schizophrenic, but we like it.)
Really think about why the concept of space travel is
exciting...especially if you don't get as excited about the concept of
coming back.  Is it because there are things here on earth that you'd like
to get away from?  Is it because you view whatever we'd establish "out
there" to be filled with sane, sensible people who would provide an
environment more like what you want?  Is it because you hope to find
intelligence out there that wil give you all the answers?  Do you believe
that the only hope of our race's survival is to get away from this mess we
have made of our world?  Is it because we have no frontier here on Earth
for you to battle and subdue? (If so, if you believe space to be the final
frontier, then you're not looking hard enough.)

I'm not going to say what are valid reasons and what are not; my point is
that some of the things we seek elsewhere could very well be found within.
Perhaps that is why we don't hear from anyone else...they are searching
inwards for answers, not outwards for more questions.

Philospohically yours (and mine and ours),
Gene

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

Date:     10 Nov 82 10:35:12-EST (Wed)
From:     Gene Spafford <spaf.gatech@UDel-Relay>
Subject:  Ad hoc definition of intelligence

As to the suggestion of an adhoc definition of intelligence as a being
both capable and willing to enter into discourse with other intelligences:
let me vote no!

Who decides "capable" and "willing"?  Let me talk about willing first.  If
I decide not to answer my phone when the Venusians call because I'm taking
out the trash or in the bathroom, or maybe I just had a bad day and don't
feel like talking, would they understand?  Or am I to be fated to "Well,
he's not intelligent.  Soup's on!"

How about capable?  Suppose my phone is broken?  They can't call in and ET
can't call out.  Am I capable?  Suppose all I have is a phone and they
communicate through some visual mechanism -- am I capable?  Consider here
on Earth.... I don't know Chinese.  Am I capable of communicating with
someone who only speaks Chinese?  If not, and I would interpret "capable"
to mean no, does that make the Chinese suitable as a food supply?  I hope
not -- an hour later I'll need another one.

How about humans who have had diseases or injury that paralyze them and
prevent them from moving or communicating?  I hope to god that none of us
should ever develop any degenerative nerve diseases and get visited by
aliens while in the hospital.

Coma, sleep, hangover....the argument can be continued.  What we really
are talking about has been debated for centuries.  What is "intelligence"
is very close to asking "what has a soul?"  That's a question I'm not sure
any of us can answer with certainty, and I refuse to even try.

I remember reading a short story once (science fiction) where an alien had
landed somewhere in the south, and a klansman had killed it because "it
wasn't white and it looked jewish."  He said he wasn't guilty of murder
because the thing wasn't human...he was just doing some bug killing.  The
public response was to define human as someone who wouldn't intentionally
hurt another intelligent being; they therefore "exterminated" the
klansman.  There's a moral in there somewhere.

Next time,
Gene

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

Date: 10-Nov-82 16:04:37 PST (Wednesday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #39

Re: ad hoc definition of intelligence (menlo70!nsc!katic@Ucb-C70)

"Note that we humans (ree [sic] Washoe & others) apply.  Note that
cetacaens [sic] don't."

Dolphins are cetaceans, and John Lilly's experiments (among others) show
that they are more than willing and able to communicate with us. Whales
are another story, since I don't think anyone has done any significant
experiments in whale-human communication. But when was the last time you
went on a whale watch? Whales know the boats are there to watch, not to
harm, and they respond to this knowledge by being friendly. In other
words, "Note that cetacaens don't." is at best an erroneous statement.

Furthermore, even if they don't communicate with us, they do communicate
with each other. Whales sing songs, although their songs don't bear much
resemblance to ours. Many whale songs have been identified. These are sets
of sounds that appear in a specific order, and are often repeated in that
order several times in a row. I don't know who they might be communicating
with (themselves, dolphins, other sea creatures) or what. Just because we
don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't an attempt to communicate, and
just because it doesn't seem to be directed towards us doesn't mean that
it isn't directed at some other species.

Even if your criterion had enough merit to justify the claim "any race
that does not use it is sutable [sic] for food", which it doesn't, it is
clear from scientific work that has already been done that whales and
dolphins do satisfy your criterion, and thus 'aren't suitable for food'.

We should remember that it is not all that clear what the term
'intelligence' means, and your two line criterion fails in so many ways as
to be useless. There is no consensus on the meaning of the word. There is
an extended debate that has been going on for 50 years as to whether a
machine can be intelligent. By your criterion, a computer is intelligent
under most normal circumstances, although not even the most ardent AI
advocates would support the contention for many machines which satisfy
your criterion.

In my opinion, the SETI depends for its success on finding not just
intelligence, but intelligence which is similar to ours. It is useless to
go about spouting garbage about what animals or ETs do or don't satisfy
some criterion which indicates the presence of something we can't even
agree on a definition of. The SETI must be based on a thorough study of
the nature of intelligence to be successful. We are still in the infantile
stages of that study, so it isn't exactly clear that we will even know
when we've found what we're looking for. Your opinion on cetacean
intelligence proves my point.

	--	Larry		--

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

Date:  10 November 1982 18:11 est
From:  Dehn.DEHN at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Taxes, Video Games, and Ma Bell

It is absolutely false that "there's never before been a national sales
tax ... in a limited way".  Such taxes are called "excise taxes".  There
are federal excise taxes on a variety of goods and services, including
gasoline, tires, cigarettes, and liquor.  It is interesting that you
suggest the phone company as a source of revenue -- there is a federal
excise tax on telephone service.  You may be "tired of paying Ma", but
one percent of that is already going straight to Uncle.

I think a bit of realism needs to be injected into this discussion.  If
a billion dollars is spent on video games, a tax such as you propose (a
penny per quarter) would raise 40 million dollars.  NASA's budget is
approximately 6 billion dollars.  This is about .2% of the GNP.  In
order to "double NASA's budget", you need a tax correspondingly large.
You need to find an activity that involves 600 billion dollars, and tax
it at a rate of 1%; or, an activity that involves 150 billion dollars,
and tax it at 4%.  It may seem fitting to take money from the
alien-murdering youth and spend it on the higher goal of the exploration
of space, but it doesn't work out when subjected to common sense and a
calculator.

                                 -jwd3

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

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

12-Nov-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #42
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 42

Today's Topics:
				Vegecide 
			Re: Space vs. environment
		   envirnoment, elections, intelligence
			   Shuttle on shortwave
Private message for harpo!ihps3!ihuxw!thor, sending directly doesn't work
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 1982 0853-PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Vegecide 
To:   frye at BBN-UNIX, space at MIT-MC    

	Date: 10 Nov 1982 15:25:07 EST (Wednesday)
	From: Roger Frye <frye at BBN-UNIX>
	Subject: Not Food For Thought

	As a vegetarian, I submit that any species having members which
	try to avoid being eaten should not be used as food.

I think most plants resist being eaten in their own way as vigorously
as animals do.  True, they can't scream, kick, bite or run, but they
struggle silently with chemicals, armor and deception.  Fruits are
offerings to marginal symbiotes, but I'm sure the plant would rather
(in an evolutionary sense) not spend its precious energy growing
fruit if had another way to spread seed.  It can be argued that
domestic animals, no less than domestic plants, are symbiotes of
humans , and wouldn't even exist if humans didn't want to eat them.
They depend on us to raise and nurture them, we depend on them to
be tasty.  The distinction between plants and animals is only that
plants are so unlike us that we don't empathize nearly as much.
Someday, when the pod ships of the intelligent forests of Rigel IV
arrive, you vegetarians will get your comeuppance.  "Suitable for
fertilizer - excellent calcium content".

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

Date: 11-Nov-82  9:45:47 PST (Thursday)
From: Suk at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Space vs. environment
To: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
cc: Space at MIT-MC, Suk

Tom,

I agree with your comment re: Space vs. environment.

I am very much in sympathy with most of the discussion on space
exploration, etc., but I am also very much in sympathy with most
environmental efforts.  Admittedly, I contribute a few dollars to
environmental causes, and none to any space-related causes, so perhaps I'm
biased toward one side.

Too bad we can't get things closer together, and urge that a lot of this
money be spent in developing space, rather than in developing wilderness,
wildlife refuges, etc.

Stan Suk
Palo Alto

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

Date: 11 Nov 1982 1003-PST
From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins )
Subject: envirnoment, elections, intelligence

As Jerry Brown says, "Ecology and technology find a unity in space."
We'll have to understand how to not use up our envirnoment before we have
large permanent space colonies, so I think environmental concerns are more
complementary to the space program than anathema to it.  Perhaps Harrison
Schmitt does not understand the importance of ecology or perhaps he was lots
of rich developer friends.  Also, it does not seem right to bemoan elections
without looking at the other choice.  While Proxmire's opponent may be better
than Proxmire, it is not clear than Democratic Senator Bingaman will be that
much worse than Schmitt.

And while we're bemoaning elections, the biggest loss of all to the space
program was Jerry Brown, the only national politician to have the vision and
intelligence to understand the importance of space the way most of us on this
mailing list do.  Other quotes from Jerry:

"As for Space Colonies, it's not a question of whether - only when and how."

"When the day of manufacturing in Space occurs and extraterrestrial material
is added into the economic equation, then the old economic rules no longer
apply.  Going into Space is an investment.  It's not a waste of money, it's
not a depleting asset, it's an expanding asset, and through creation of new
wealth we make possible the redistribution of more wealth to those who
don't have it."

Lastly, anyone with even a rudimentary training in philosophy would have a
hard time taking the "capable and willing to communicate" definition of
intelligence as a serious attempt at definition.  It seems like a waste of
resources to argue against such a (ridiculous) position.


-------

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

Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-G received by CMU-10A at 11-Nov-82 18:32:51-EST
Date: 11 Nov 1982 18:30:46-EST
From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-CS-G at CMU-CS-A
Subject: Shuttle on shortwave

According to Media Network on Radio Netherlands, shuttle communications
are being retransmitted by amateur radio station W5RRR in Houston, Texas.
Frequencies (kHz) are 14,225 - 14,250; 21,360; or 28,500 - 29,700.
The exact frequency used depends on interference and propagation.
Transmissions are SSB upper sideband.

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

Date: 12 November 1982 02:46-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Private message for harpo!ihps3!ihuxw!thor, sending directly doesn't work
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Date: 10-Nov-82 20:14:08-PST (Wed)
From: MAILER-DAEMON@Berkeley (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
To: REM@MIT-MC
Subject: Unable to deliver mail

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
harpo!ihps3!ihuxw!thor... Connecting to harpo.uucp...
AERROR - (n < SLOCKTRIES) CAN NOT GET LCK.SEQLharpo!ihps3!ihuxw!thor... Service unavailable
REM@MIT-MC... Connecting to mit-mc.arpa...

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Date: 10 November 1982 08:21-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)
Message-Id: <8210110414.828@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA>
Received: by UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA (3.227 [10/22/82])
	id A00828; 10-Nov-82 20:14:08-PST (Wed)
To: harpo!ihps3!ihuxw!thor@UCB-C70

Maybe we should arrange to farm out some space-related work to Wisc
and other states that have obnoxious active anti-space senators. Then
they'd have incentive to be pro-space.

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

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

13-Nov-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #43
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 43

Today's Topics:
	      "High Frontier" -- National defense from space
			      Schmitt's loss
		    What's the rent once you're there?
			  Re: Magnetic Monopoles
				 Vgecide
		  Cetacean Intelligence & Communication
			      New SRB Bolts
		    Close Encounters of the Third Kind
			  STS-5:  Mission Facts
			  Day by Day Flight Plan
			  EAFB Lakebed Scratched
			  fuel tank color query
			Re: fuel tank color query
		Amateur Radio Relay Frequencies for STS-5
		      Re: SAtellite locating systems
			      All Systems Go
			       SRB's Found
			      SRB separation
			      Re: Not Alone
			   subdivide net.space
			  Columbia phone number
			       All is Well
			phone and sattelite - (nf)
			Re: Day by Day Flight Plan
			Re: Columbia phone number
			      SBS-C Deployed
			 Re: subdivide net.space
			  Dumping Heat in Space
			 Re: subdivide net.space
			  SBS orbital mechanics
				 Vegecide
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 November 1982 01:40-PST (Friday)
From:  Allan M. Schiffman <Schiffman at SRI-KL>
To: Space at mit-mc
Subject: "High Frontier" -- National defense from space

I've been hearing more and more about this lately -- this month's
"Analog" editorial mentions a new movie; Edward Teller obliquely
referred to it on ABC's "Nightline" two weeks ago as "Mutually Assured
Survival".

The concept is, for those who haven't heard, to use space platforms for
gigantic energy weapons (and 1000+ target tracking systems) suitable
for anti-ballistic missile defense.  I haven't heard what kind of
weapons have been proposed, but I assume particle beams and
fission-pumped lasers are among the ideas.

The proponents claim TOTAL invulnerability for the platforms against
ground-based weapons, and near-total (I assume) protection of the
country.  No doubt construction will require all the space-industrial
technology that has been discussed on this list -- moon-mining,
asteroid-mining, "construction shacks", mass-drivers, whatever.

Some of the proponents, I suppose, are just space-fanatics like you
and me and feel that this is the best way to "package" our current
space-industry dreams.  {Best in the sense that it's the one that
Congress/Military-Industrial-Complex/Public-Opinion/Administration
(pick some) will buy.}

Well, I've said all this in order to say -- I think the idea is
absolutely crazy!

I'm not saying that protection from missiles aren't a good thing, I'm
also not saying that it's not possible.

It just seems obvious to me that this is the ultimate "de-stabilizing"
weapon system.  {Although, I admit, the same argument applies to any
defense that confers "invulnerability".}

It's very simple.  Say it becomes known to the Soviets that the US
will have an effective ballistic-missile defense in N years, and they
determine that they can't have one for N+M years.

Before year N, both the US and the Soviets have "Mutual Assured
Destruction".

After year N+M, both sides have "Mutual Assured Survival" (does that
mean that both sides playfully lob bombs at each other because they
know it won't hurt?).

But between year N and N+M, the US has "First Strike Capability".
Since the Soviets think (fear) that the US would destroy it if
possible, they will expect a US first strike in this period.

Solution?  In year N-1 or so, the Soviets nuke all US launch sites;
probably making a phone call 20 minutes before so the US will know
it's a limited strike, hoping that the US retaliation will be
similarly limited ("Flexible Response").

-Allan

P.S. On a completely different subject: does anybody know of any
current planning for the "Heavy Launch Vehicle"?  With the Soviet "G"
booster news, it might be politically feasible to get limited funding,
no?

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

Date: 12 Nov 1982 09:58:22-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Schmitt's loss

   I don't want to get too much into straight politics on the net (or in
this digest) but I should point out that Schmitt didn't just have
the environmentalists against him; politically he was extremely close to
Jesse Helms, who is at least as dangerous as Proxmire. It may be
shortsighted, but I'm wary of spending personal energy pushing space
with a pain like Helms trying to cut away so sharply at what I consider
elementary freedoms here on Earth. Does anyone else remember the early
Asimov story about a theocracy that banned space flight?

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

Date: Friday, 12 November 1982  12:55-EST
Sender: KWH at MIT-OZ
From: KWH at MIT-MC
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: What's the rent once you're there?

Once the shuttle is up in orbit, how much does it cost for each day it
is there?  This includes ground crews, tracking, etc.  In the future,
will most missions planned to be long, in order to take advantage of
being up there?

Ken

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

Date: 12 Nov 1982 1356-EST
From: Tony <Li at RUTGERS>
Subject: Re: Magnetic Monopoles
To: space at MIT-MC

My E+M prof almost had a fit when the class brought up the subject of
magneic monopoles. Seems the only way he had of answering our
question was the classical 'Proof by Lack of Counterexample'. 

Seriously though, there is no theoretic problem with magnetic
monopoles, we just haven't been able to find one or synthesize one.

Does a real physicist out there have a better answer?

Tony Li
Rutgers

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

Date: 12 Nov 1982 1452-EST
From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ
Subject: Vgecide

Moravec is obviously right.  Now that I am tuned to observe carefully,
I can see that the vegetables on the plate do indeed do everything in
their power to escape being eaten.

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

Date: 11 Nov 1982 1535-EST
From: Patty Ann Hardy <HARDY at KL2137>
To: Young at KL2137
Subject: Cetacean Intelligence & Communication
Reply-to: YOUNG at DEC-MARLBORO

Two cents on the Cetacean intelligence & communication issue:  Lilly was
not the first to claim this.  In a paper before a philosophical society in
1963 Ashley Montagu marshalled a bunch of anecdotal reports going back to
the ancient Greeks, citing repeated instances of dolphin behavior that
make no sense if these animals are just animals.  This incidents span a
considerable length of time and have occured in places as far apart as
Greece and Australia ( and most recently, Japan ).  They include spontaneous
play with children at beaches, documented rescues of drowning humans, 
instances of novel and apparently organized actions taken by groups of
dolphins, and other incidents having distinctly odd overtones. We should
spend money on trying to find extraterrestrial intelligence, but I do not
think this should be a high priority in space research, considering that
it's questionable if we would recognize it if we found it.  Those for whom
meeting the aliens is THE reason for space research should examine their
motives very carefully.  Read John Lilly's autobiography THE SCIENTIST for
an example of a man who sought nonhuman intelligence because of his
unsatisfactory dealings with humans...

					Pat Hardy via YOUNG at MARKET

PS: I heard that there's semiconductor-making equipment, including a
high-temperature furnace, aboard Solyut 7.  What are they doing up there?

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

Date: 10 Nov 82 17:39:07-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: New SRB Bolts

NASA replaced the breakaway bolts on the parachute apparatus on
the SRB's with solid bolts in hopes of preventing a recurrence
of STS-4's booster mishap.  In it, the bolts, which connect the
parachutes to the boosters, broke away too early and the boosters
fell unhindered to the ocean and promptly sank.

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

Date: 10 Nov 82 17:40:45-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Close Encounters of the Third Kind

During the first four hours of STS-5, the Columbia will come within
48 miles of the orbiting Soviet Salyut-7 space station.  NASA says
the encounter could be close enough for the respective crews to see
each other if they are looking in the right direction and if lighting
is good.

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

Date: 10 Nov 82 16:26:52-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: STS-5:  Mission Facts

Here are the mission facts and figures for STS-5:

Launch:  0719 EST, 11 November, 1982, from pad 39A at KSC
Orbit:  81 orbits at 184 miles altitude
Mission Length:  5 days 2 hours 8 minutes
Landing:  0625 Pacific time, 16 November, 1982
Crew:  Commander Vance D. Brand, Pilot Robert F. Overmyer,
       and mission specialists Dr. William B. Lenoir and
       Dr. Joseph P. Allen
Major Objectives:  The launch of two satellites, one owned by
		   SBS, the other by Telsat of Canada.  Also
		   scheduled is a 3 .5 hour spacewalk by Lenoir
		   and Allen.
Next Launch:  Following STS-5, Columbia will be taken out of
	      service for about a year for modifications.
	      The Challenger is scheduled to make its debut
	      on 20 January, 1982.  It will deploy a communications
	      satellite and a relay satellite.

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

Date: 10 Nov 82 16:22:44-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Day by Day Flight Plan

Here is a day by day flight plan for STS-5:

Day 1:  Columbia lifts off pad 39A at 0719 EST on 11 November, 1982.
	One hour after lift off, Vance Brand opens the cargo bay
	doors to dissipate the collected heat.  6.5 hours after
	launch, a 90 minute countdown is started, after which a
	SBS satellite is ejected.  45 minutes after that, with
	the shuttle turned away, a motor ignites and takes it up
	into geosynchronous orbit.

Day 2:  33 hours after lift off, a Canadian Telsat satellite is
	ejected, following another 90 minutes countdown.  Again,
	45 minutes later, a motor ignites to take it to geosynchronous
	orbit.  After this, Columbia's starboard side is turned
	to the sun and left there for 47 hours.

Day 3:  Nothing special is planned.  Systems will be checked, and
	there is time to launch a satellite if one couldn't be
	launched on time.

Day 4:  William Lenoir and Joseph Allen, mission specialists, don
	spacesuits and take a 3.5 hour spacewalk in the cargo bay.
	Following this, an engine left in the cold for two days will
	be test fired, and the Columbia will be placed nose to the
	sun for 19 hours.

Day 5:  Systems are checked for reentry.

Day 6:  After the 81st orbit, the cargo bay doors are closed and
	Columbia reenters the atmosphere, landing at EAFB at 0625
	Pacific time (yes, I know I said 0725 before, but this
	article said 0625)

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

Date: 10 Nov 82 19:50:25-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: EAFB Lakebed Scratched

NASA has decided to scrap plans to land on the dry lakebed
at EAFB due to heavy rain there.  At the moment, one inch
of water covers the lakebed.  After the first orbit, the primary
landing site will be runway 22, the concrete runway at EAFB,
where STS-4 landed.  From launch until the completion of orbit
1, the emergency abort site will be either White Sands Missile
Range, landing site of STS-3, or the concrete strip at KSC.
No delay in launch is expected.

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

Date: 10 Nov 82 15:49:49-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps4!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pa.lebold at Ucb-C70
Subject: fuel tank color query

Can someone explain to me why  the  external  fuel  tank  has  an
orange  color?   I noticed this on STS-4 but the first three were
white I thought.  A person im my office said it was to save about
300#  of  white  paint.   Since the tank is made of aluminum(?) I
can't figure out where the orange comes from.

Thanks,

Timothy Lange             inuxc/ucbvax/harpo|pur-ee!ecn-pa.lebold
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN

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

Date: 10 Nov 82 21:47:11-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: fuel tank color query
Article-I.D.: eagle.614
In-Reply-To: Article ecn-pa.629
Via:  Usenet; 12 Nov 82 20:36-PST

The external fuel tank is covered with insulation to protect the tank
during ascent and to protect the cryogenic fuels.  This insulation
accounts for the color of the tank.

On the first two missions, the insulation was painted white; all later
tanks do away with the paint, saving weight.

Phil Karn

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 0:57:15-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Amateur Radio Relay Frequencies for STS-5

Now you can finally start saving money with that expensive HF SSB
station.  The FCC has granted the amateur radio clubs at Johnson Space
Center and JPL authority to rebroadcast STS-5 communications, so you
don't have to waste money calling the Dial-It number.

W6VIO will transmit on 224.04 mhz; this may not be too useful outside
of Pasadena.  However, W5RRR at JSC will transmit on 28.6, 21.36, 14.28 or
14.23 mhz, depending on conditions.

(The following information just came from an AP wire story.)

Phil Karn, KA9Q

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

Date: 9 Nov 82 23:38:14-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: SAtellite locating systems

	Two Canadian pilots were rescued recently from the wilderness of
northern BC because their ELT beep was picked up by a geosynch locator
satellite.
						Rick.

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 6:17:23-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: All Systems Go

At 2300 EST last night, NASA officials gave the word to continue
with the launch countdown, and 50 minutes later, hydrogen and
oxygen began pouring into the shuttle's external tank in the last
pre-launch activity.  If all goes well, the Columbia will lift
off at 0719 EST.

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 11:03:43-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: SRB's Found
Article-I.D.: alice.1098
Via:  Usenet; 12 Nov 82 23:10-PST

Two recovery ships tracked and sighted the SRB's used in
STS-5.   They are said to be floating on the ocean and
doing well.

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 11:27:01-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!mayer at Ucb-C70
Subject: SRB separation
Article-I.D.: rocheste.228
In-Reply-To: Article eagle.617
Via:  Usenet; 12 Nov 82 23:48-PST

I saw some very long distance shots on CBS.  During the film, I noticed
the video pausing every few seconds.  Is there any chance they had a
computer tracking the rocket flare?  The pauses could have been the
tracker getting lost and forwarding an old image.  Anybody know?

					Jim Mayer
					seismo!rochester!mayer
					allegra!rochester!mayer

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

Date:  13 November 1982 03:00 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Re: Not Alone
Reply-To:  RMann.HDSA%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS
To:  Space at MIT-MC

(1)  From: RMann.HDSA  11/12/82  1441.0 mst Fri

Date:  12 November 1982 14:40 mst From:  RMann.HDSA Subject:  Re: Not
Alone To:  {mbx >udd>HDSA>Schauble>meetings>space}

Perhaps the reason we don't "hear" anyone out there is because everyone
who has lasted long enough has learned to use tachyons.

Who would want to wait around for a hundred years to find out the answer
to her message she sent today when he could have found out the answer to
his message yesterday ?

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 11:00:39-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!npoiv!pyuxbb!pyuxdd!pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!wald at Ucb-C70
Subject: subdivide net.space
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1142
Via:  Usenet; 12 Nov 82 23:57-PST

 This group is of interest but is a bit overwhelming. I sugest the
following as potentially reasonable subdivisions:
	
	net.space.life  - for all the debates about ETs, life out there, etc
	net.space.use   - industry, space stations, etc.
	net.space.events - (truncated at the n) not to be confused with
		net.columbia, for discussion of eclipses, Halley's comet,
		auroras, etc.

	bob waldstein
	mhuxt!wald

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 13:29:47-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!zeppo!dlm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Columbia phone number
Article-I.D.: zeppo.376
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 0:07-PST

Does anyone know the phone number to call to hear the astronauts.
I understand you can call for 50 cents a minute.  It would probably
be fun to call so if you know the number, please post it this newsgroup.
-Debbie Manning

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 7:30:16-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: All is Well
Article-I.D.: alice.1101
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 0:18-PST

The astronauts aboard the Columbia woke up today to find out
that nothing wrong had happened.  The ship is in near perfect
condition after its launch.  Today's activities include the
launch of Telsat of Canada's Anik satellite, in the same manner
as yesterday's SBS-C launch.

Two recovery ships off the coast of Cape Canaveral expect to
latch on to the two floating (!) SRB's today in preparation
for their tow back to the Cape.  Two parachutes used in their
descent were used for the same purpose on STS-2.

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 16:49:01-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!pfc at Ucb-C70
Subject: phone and sattelite - (nf)
Article-I.D.: whuxlb.792
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 0:20-PST

#N:whuxlb:4600005:000:418
whuxlb!pfc    Nov 11 16:32:00 1982

I just called the phone number for the shuttle.  Got the communications just
as they were being picked up from Guam.  Heard Mission Control give the
indication to the shuttle that the first sattlite was deployed on target
with "better than average coning" (for those of you who know what that means).
The sound is excellent.  Enjoy, enjoy.  This could become addictive.  How much
are we (AT&T) making off the phone.

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 12:06:00-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!presby!seismo!rocheste!gary at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Day by Day Flight Plan
Article-I.D.: rocheste.229
In-Reply-To: Article alice.1090
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 0:56-PST

This may be a dumb question, but how does opening the doors dissipate
heat? I thought you needed something to transfer heat TO, i.e. matter.
Is it that space isn't a perfect vacuum, or that they are still in some
atmosphere after 1 hour?

                                not afraid to name my sign,
                                 "slippery when wet"

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 14:23:12-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!mhtsa!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxi!macrev at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Columbia phone number
Article-I.D.: mhuxi.17
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 1:27-PST


The number was posted earlier today (by Andy, I believe).
Dial (900)410-6272 and enjoy.

                            Mike Lynch
                            Still lost in Short Hills

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 20:19:24-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: SBS-C Deployed
Article-I.D.: alice.1099
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 1:38-PST

The SBS-C satellite was deployed right on time today, about 8 hours
after the launch of STS-5.  Spinning at 51 rpm, the satellite was
ejected from the cargo bay into space.  45 minutes later, with
Columbia's belly to the satellite, its own motor ignited and took
it into an elliptical orbit near the geostationary altitude.  On
Saturday, a second motor will finalize its orbit.  Tomorrow, Canadian
Telsat's Anik satellite will be deployed in the same manner.

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 20:32:17-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: subdivide net.space
Article-I.D.: alice.1100
In-Reply-To: Article mhuxt.1142
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 1:47-PST

What you don't realize is that net.space is gatewayed into the
ARPA SPACE at MIT-MC, i.e. all messages from the ARPA side
going into their digest are broken up and submitted to net.space
There is no way to submit them selectively to a subgroup, so
all the ARPA messages would go to net.space anyway.

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 20:35:06-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!eisx!pyuxbb!u1100s!dad at Ucb-C70
Subject: Dumping Heat in Space
Article-I.D.: u1100s.141
In-Reply-To: Article rocheste.229
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 2:07-PST

You only need some "thing" to tranfer heat to for convective heat loss.
Radiative heat loss works just fine in space as long as the stuff you
are radiating towards is cooler than you are.  In other words, you can
radiate towards "empty" space or even the Earth, but you can't radiate
towards the sun.  You are correct in saying that convective heat loss
does not work in space.  The insides of the payload bay doors have glossy
radiating surfaces.  You can see them in the pictures.
Doug Davey (longing to be up there too)
pyuxbb!u1100s!dad

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 18:19:43-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: subdivide net.space
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2805
In-Reply-To: Article mhuxt.1142
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 2:17-PST

A subdivision would be just fine with me, but I can't help thinking
that the name net.astronomy should be used for discussion of "space
events" like Halley's comet, eclipses, telescopes, etc. 

						David Bryant
						 cbosg!djb

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 23:54:48-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: SBS orbital mechanics
Article-I.D.: eagle.624
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 2:26-PST

>From what I could discern by watching the SBS ejection, the orbital
mechanics and sun angles appear very similar to standard procedure
with expendable launch vehicles.

When the SBS payload was ejected, the shuttle was making a descending (north
to south) equator crossing over the Pacific Ocean.  The shuttle was oriented
with the velocity vector towards the bottom, the earth off the starboard
wing, and the sun off the port wing.  (It was local noon at the "launch
site.")

Thus, when SBS-3 was ejected, its engine's thrust vector was pointing
against its velocity vector. (If it had fired immediately, the payload
would have reentered). The 45 minute delay placed the actual firing 1/2
orbit later, near an ascending (south to north) equator crossing at
"local midnight" over the Indian Ocean. Since the spacecraft was spinning
with its axis fixed in inertial space, the engine's thrust vector was now
properly pointed in line with its velocity vector.

After the burn, SBS-3 went into an elliptical orbit with the burn point
becoming the perigee.  The semimajor axis of the ellipse is in the sun-
earth line, which is common for geostationary transfer orbits because of
thermal constraints.  It also minimizes orbital perturbations by the sun.
Apogee occurs at "local noon", so that the satellite does not spend much
(if any) time in eclipse.  Normally, this kind of orbit is achieved with
night launches on conventional launchers.

Due to the earth's oblateness, the apogee precesses several degrees
after several orbits to coincide with an equator crossing near the final
geostationary latitude.  At this point, the apogee kick motor on the
satellite is fired and it then stops moving relative to the earth.

Phil Karn

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

Date: 13 Nov 1982 0222-EST
From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ
Subject: Vegecide
To: space at MIT-MC

In fact there is an essay on this subject by Robert Benchley,
called "Why Should Salt Suffer".
-------

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

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

14-Nov-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #44
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 44

Today's Topics:
			      Re: Not alone
			       Launch STS-5
	      "High Frontier" -- National defense from space
		Maneuvering Engines Fired to Correct Orbit
			 Re: Not Food For Thought
			 Military launch security
				lost heat.
			    Following the wind
		    Anik Launch -- Experiment Botched
			       more on SSI
			 3 year shuttle schedule
		      Message of 12-Nov-82 12:47:18
		     Taxes, Video Games, and Ma Bell
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 82 23:36:10-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Not alone
Article-I.D.: watmath.3837
In-Reply-To: Article ixlpc.4054714 uwvax.661
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 2:56-PST

	This reminds me of a story I once heard (sorry, no source) about
von Daniken on Easter Island.  He spent an enormous amount of time wondering
how the primitve natives, who were still around, managed to move those huge
stones into position.  In any case, he asked a tribal elder, expecting to hear
legends that he could construe as prehistoric ET interference...instead, the
elder said "Oh, you want some of those stones moved?" - in the afternoon,
a few of the villagers had carted them into new positions...
						Rick.


[AAAArgh!!!!! - it was certainly NOT vonDaniken who is as reliable a
source as the National Enquirer.  The natives were, in fact, shown
carving, moving and erecting (with progressivly stacked timbers piled
under the incrementally levered statue) a somewhat crude version of the
Easter island statuary (they were out of practice, and sort of hurrying).
I saw it on TV about four years ago on either a National Geographic
special, in which case the instigator was probably Thor Heyerdahl, or on
a Nova, in which case the person who asked was a scientist with a less
publicly known name.  -- HPM]

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 9:08:07-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!eagle!mhtsa!allegra!psuvax!burdvax!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Launch STS-5
Article-I.D.: inuxc.510
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 4:07-PST


	The launch was the super! The weather allowed much better
camera coverage than the others. ABC showed images of the
SRB Sep which were absolutely incrediable.

			Godspeed Columbia
			Fred BTL/Indy

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

Date: 13 November 1982 08:12-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: "High Frontier" -- National defense from space
To: Schiffman at SRI-KL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think this has already been adequately discussed on ARMS-DISCUSSION.
Interested people should consult those archives for detailed discussion.
Briefly, if we install defensive capability we must be sure USSR gets
it just about the same time we get it. Exact synchronization is
impossible, but if it takes 3 years to implement and one side gets a
month or two ahead or behind it doesn't hurt enough to matter. This
applies both to space-based and other defense as well to disarmament.

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 11:32:50-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Maneuvering Engines Fired to Correct Orbit
Article-I.D.: alice.1102
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 4:58-PST

Vance Brand and Robert Overmyer today fired the Columbia's
maneuvering engines to correct the ship's orbit.  The orbit
was slightly elevated by the dispatch of the SBS-C satellite
yesterday.  Later today, Telsat of Canada's Anik satellite
will be launched.  Also, student experiments on board the
shuttle were activated this morning.

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 12:23:38-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxi!macrev at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Not Food For Thought
Article-I.D.: mhuxi.20
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 5:26-PST


And I submit that I'm mighty curious about which member
you're trying to eat!!!!

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 15:55:41-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.jrs at Ucb-C70
Subject: Military launch security
Article-I.D.: purdue.442
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 6:17-PST

As paranoid as the military is about security for their secret launches,
the practice is usually quite humorous.  To wit:

The "secure" shuttle launch pad being readied at Vandenburg AFB was used
once in a previous incarnation as a set for an episode of the old "Bionic
Woman" TV series.

While working at KSC, we became quiet adept at determining whether a secret
launch was about to take place by how much attention the normal gate guards
paid to incoming traffic during rush hour.

				- Jeff Schwab
				  <purdue!jrs>

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 1:03:23-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.piner at Ucb-C70
Subject: lost heat.
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.567
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 6:19-PST

The shuttle RADIATES heat into space. Stop and think, the sun does not need
air between here and there to warm the earth. All bodies with a temperature
above absolute zero radiate a "black body" spectrum. I suggest you get a
basic physics text such as Halliday & Resnick and look up black body
radiation.

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

Date: 9 Nov 82 19:29:36-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: UNKNOWN.G.asa at Ucb-C70
Subject: Following the wind
Article-I.D.: populi.451
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 6:18-PST

     "I would also dispute that the test for state myopia is
     whether or not they pass a nuclear arms reduction
     referendum.  I think it more a test of follow-the-wind."

                                             -- Mark Mallett
                                                (11/8/82)

I think mindless, knee-jerk remarks like this have more in common with
passing wind than following it.  You don't like Proxmire?  Fine.  As a
taxpayer, I'm glad to have him around, and I'm pleased he can get re-
elected on a campaign budget of $100.  (They've got good sense in
Wisconsin.) You opposed to arms reduction?  Well, I'm for it, and I
find the pro-nuke mutual admiration society in this newsgroup
tiresome.

     And if you'd like to know where much of your money goes that
could otherwise be spent on the space program (assuming, of course,
you're more interested in facts than in scapegoating Proxmire), you
might want to read Admiral Hyman Rickover's statement to the Joint
Economic Committee of Congress [reprinted in the NEW YORK REVIEW OF
BOOKS, March 18, 1982, pp. 12-14].  Among other things, Rickover, the
prime mover of the development of our nuclear submarine forces,
advocates nationalization of the arms industry [p. 13], and states
that "the most important thing we could do is start in having an
international meeting where we first outlaw nuclear weapons to start
with, then we outlaw nuclear reactors too..." [p. 14].

     Proud to add that I voted for The Freeze in CA,

                                   John Hevelin
                                    ucbvax!G:asa

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 19:55:59-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Anik Launch -- Experiment Botched
Article-I.D.: alice.1107
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 6:36-PST

Telsat of Canada's Anik-C satellite was launched on time and
on target today, as the Columbia completed its major goal
of its first commercial flight.  On Sunday, the last goal,
a spacewalk by William Lenoir and Joe Allen, will take place.

Meanwhile, Joe Allen admitted to having partially goofed in
performing one experiment.  He was a bit late in starting the
sponge cell experiment but said he would try to do the rest of
it on time and make up for his goof.

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 16:27:26-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!hao!cires!harkins at Ucb-C70
Subject: more on SSI
Article-I.D.: cires.1958
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 6:38-PST

i just stumbled across a rather well done story about the folks that got
Space Services, Inc. going, how the first rocket blew and how the second
one flew in the Nov. issue of Texas Monthly; a lot more colorful than
the usual news accounts we all saw... ernie harkins

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

Date: 9 Nov 82 13:00:55-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70
Subject: 3 year shuttle schedule
Article-I.D.: tekcad.259
Via:  Usenet; 13 Nov 82 6:39-PST

Someone expressed interest in the schedule for the shuttles.  The following
schedule is culled from the November issues of Space World and Astronautics&
Aeronautics.  Much more information there...

Shuttle Flights:
#  OV-               Crew   Comments

5  102  11/11-15/82  4  Comsats; SBS-C and Telesat E, EVA
6   99   1/20-23/83  4  TDRS-A, CFES Electrophoresis System
                        first flight Challenger, light ext. tank, 104% thrust
7   99   4/20-26/83  4  satellites, CFES, Sally Ride first US fem. in space
8   99   7/ 4- 7/83  4  satellites, CFES, 109% thrust, high perf. solids
9   99  10/ 1- 8/83  6  Spacelab
10  99  12/14- ?/83  ?  DOD, Teal Ruby Sat.
11 102  1/29-2/5/84 
12 103   3/18-23/84     first flight Discovery
13  99   4/17-22/84     Solar Max rescue, Long Dur. Exposure Facility(LDEF)
14 102   5/17-22/84
15 103   6/12-15/84
16  99   7/ 8- ?/84  ?  DOD
17 102   8/ 3-10/84
18 103  8/28-9/2/84 
19  99  9/23-10/1/84    Spacelab
20 102  10/18-25/84
21 103  11/13-20/84     Spacelab
22  99  12/ 9- ?/84     DOD
23 102   1/ 9-16/85
24 103   2/ 2- ?/85     DOD
25  99   2/28-3/3/85    Space Telescope, Retreive LDEF
26 102   4/ 1- 6/85
27  99   5/ 1- 3/85     Galileo
28 104   5/29-6/5/85    Large Structures Test, first flight Atlantis
29 102   6/25-7/2/85    Spacelab
30  99   7/23-28/85
31 104   8/17-? /85     DOD
32 102   9/14-21/85
				
				Keith Lofstrom

uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet:	tekcad!keithl@tek
ARPAnet:tekcad!keithl.tek@udel-relay

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

Date: 12 Nov 1982 1402-EST
From: The Mailer Daemon <Mailer at MIT-EECS>
To: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS
Subject: Message of 12-Nov-82 12:47:18
Remailed-date: 13 Nov 1982 1222-EST
Remailed-from: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS
Remailed-to: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

Message failed for the following:
space-digest at MIT-OZ: -No such mailbox at this site.
            ------------
Date: 12 Nov 1982 1247-EST
From: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS
Subject: Anti-matter
To: frye at BBN-UNIX, space-digest at MIT-OZ

For an introduction to particle physics that is painless and interesting,
may I recommend a book called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". It should be
available at any book store. You also might want to read "The Tao of Physics"
				
					Robert Kassel
					Ls.RHK at MIT-EE
-------
-------

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

Date: 13 November 1982 18:55-EST
From: Stewart Cobb <HSC at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Taxes, Video Games, and Ma Bell
To: Dehn.DEHN at MIT-MULTICS
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC


   Sorry, I didn't realize that it looked like I was supporting the
video-game tax.  My intention was exactly the opposite.  But I would
like to see Bell pay NASA some money for the use of what is
essentially an audio program.  Legally, I don't believe an audio
program is any different from a television program.  Can't NASA
copyright their audio or something?

                                Stewart

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

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

15-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #45
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 45

Today's Topics:
			    Following the wind
		       Re: Joe Blow in space - (nf)
		     Re: video game space tax <FLAME>
				  Orange
			      Re: Not alone
				 Quarters
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 November 1982 07:52-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Following the wind
To: UNKNOWN.G.asa at UCB-C70
cc: HPM at MIT-MC, REM at MIT-MC

Outlawing nuclear reactors because they use the same material
(Uranium&Plutonium) as nuclear bombs is like outlawing love because it
uses the same material as murder (human emotions).

Outlawing nuclear reactors because they are dangerous, while not
outlawing burning coal and fossil fuel, is like outlawing whispering
because it disturbs the neighbors at night but not outlawing firecrackers.

You have any other reasons for advocting outlawing nuclear reactors?

(Gee, I think I said that beautifully. HPM, you may save it if you
like it too.)

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

Date: 4 Nov 82 18:25:56-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!mj at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Joe Blow in space - (nf)

I read in TIME magazine lately (the issue with the catalogs on the front)
that JS&A Sales Group is offering passenger space on a shuttle flight!
They haven't set a date (or a price) yet, but they are negotioationg with
NASA and expect to send up 6 lucky **RICH** people some time in the
not-so-distant future.

					Mark Johnson
					decvax!pur-ee!mj

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 1:23:40-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: video game space tax <FLAME>

Taxing videogames?
<FLAME ON> ...another goddam libertarian...oh well...
We like space exploration.  Video game players like video games.  Why
should we tax their hobby, and they not tax ours?  I.E., all future shuttle
flights devoted to zero-g fabrication of high speed video game components.
Sounds silly, doesn't it?
 ...but, I hear you reply, space is GOOD for us, and benefits everyone...
Well then, if space benefits everyone, why not tax everyone by getting the
money from the general fund?  Perhaps space is wonderful enough to force at
gunpoint the folks at Thiokol to work overtime building SRB's, or lock people
into the Rockwell plant until they build a fifth shuttle.  Why pick on video
game players?
   Taxation is for generally agreed upon social goals, and I'm afraid we space
freaks have done a poor job of convincing taxpayers and congresscritters that
space exploration is a worthy goal.  I suggest that those who want more
taxation for space exploration start convincing other people likewise, or get
up the money to pay for it themselves.  Perhaps by building and operating
video games and donating the profits to NASA.
   
   Afraid to waste quarters in video games, but demanding the freedom to;
				Keith Lofstrom

uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 14:59:22-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekcrd!iddic!evp at Ucb-C70
Subject: Orange

The external tank is made of aluminum, as ecn-pa.lebold pointed out, but
is covered with an orange colored foam insulating material. This material
not only keeps the liquid H2 and O2 cold during launch preparations, but
protects the tank from fairly intense heating caused by shock waves that
form between the orbiter and the tank during ascent. The paint was thought
to be necessary during initial design to help insulate the tank from
sunlight and other heat sources, but is no longer considered necessary,
and the quite significant mass savings directly translate into payload
capacity (since the tank is taken almost into orbit).

		- Ed Post (... teklabs!iddic!evp)

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 17:00:31-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Not alone

I agree with R.E. Maas' sentiments about wanting to enter into harmony
with as much of the universe as possible, since it is exactly that ability
(plus the ability to remake the universe should the harmony be off) which
has made homo sapiens? so successful so far.  But please, let's quit
trying to put Zen on one side or the other of this argument.  Zen takes no
stand on whether to sit at home or go out.  It teaches how best to do that
which you are doing, by being in harmony with yourself as you do it.

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

Date:     12 Nov 82 14:21-EST (Fri)
From:     Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
Subject:  Quarters

The last figure I heard about money spent on arcade games alone
was 100 billion quarters and rising.

				- Steven Gutfreund

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

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

16-Nov-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #46
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 46

Today's Topics:
			      Shuttle Audio
				Not Alone
			       100% oxygen
				 Vegecide
		      OASIS November meeting at JPL
			     Shuttle sighting
			      Phone Charges?
			       SRB Recovery
			   SRB Recovery Delayed
		  SRB's Retrieved -- Spacewalk Postponed
			   Wings but no feet  
		      Updated STS-5 Orbital Elements
			  STS-5 orbital elements
		     Power Failure at Mission Control
		    Re: EAFB Lakebed Scratched - (nf)
	       Is anyone there?  Intelligent life defined.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  15 November 1982 21:53 est
From:  Dehn.DEHN at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Shuttle Audio
To:  HSC at MIT-MC
cc:  SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

Perhaps NASA could copyright the audio (and video) signals from the
shuttle, and attempt to charge for the right to bring these signals to
the public, but it would probably be counterproductive.  I assume that
the current policy is to give these signals away free, for the publicity
value, as a service to those interested in space for scientific and
technical reasons, and simply as a way of giving the taxpayer something
of a "progress report" on what is being done with his money.  The fact
that the same signal is being broadcast on radio (as reported in this
digest) and is often used by the broadcast media as part of their
programming, leads me to believe that AT&T is simply taking advantage of
free information, over which they have no monopoly, and selling the
service of bringing it to your telephone.  Note that they do the same
thing with the time of day, and pay no royalties to anyone for that.
All of this would be unnecessary if there were better broadcast
coverage.  Wouldn't it be nice if cable TV operators dedicated one of
their spare channels to space coverage (based on a straight NASA feed,
no interpretations or interruptions by anchormen) during shuttle
missions?

                                       -jwd3

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

Date:  15 November 1982 20:34 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Not Alone
Reply-To:  RMann.HDSA%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS
To:  Space at MIT-MC


Perhaps the reason we don't "hear" anyone out there is because everyone
who has lasted long enough has learned to use tachyons.

Who would want to wait around for a hundred years to find out the answer
to her message she sent today when he could have found out the answer to
his message yesterday ?

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

Date:     15 Nov 82 13:31-EST (Mon)
From:     Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
Subject:  100% oxygen
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 15 Nov 82 19:34-EST

A couple questions about the EVAs:

1. Does anyone know why they use 100% oxygen in the suits?
  (is it merely so that they can hold more oxygen and stay out longer?)
  (does it make suit design easier?)

2. Are they really using 100% oxygen or is there 2% CO(2) so that they
   do not hyperventilate?

3. Are they running at sea-level pressure, or is it less?

4. What's the big advantage in the two piece suits, they look more rigid
   to me.

5. Why do they need complete suits? Why not just a helmet and 
   their thermal "spaghetti" suits? 16psi is not too much for the
   skin to handle (just look at our feet). <I have read an SF anthology
   that did have the characters running around in just thermal suits,
   the only problem was you had to fart first or you would feel very sick>

6. Why don't they use tubes from the ship to give oxy/nitrogen mix if
   self-contained suits can only use 100% oxygen.


		I guess the questions show I have a lot to learn
		can anyone give me a start.

				- Steven Gutfreund

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

Date:     15 Nov 82 19:21-EST (Mon)
From:     Andrew Cromarty <cromarty.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
cc:       cromarty.umass-coins at UDel-Relay
Subject:  Vegecide
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 15 Nov 82 19:44-EST

I suspect that aliens will find that we are not especially tasty,
but that we are very good for belts and shoes.
							asc

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

Return-path: KATZ@USC-ISIF
Date: 15 Nov 1982 1140-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: OASIS November meeting at JPL
To: bboard at USC-ISIB, bboard at USC-ECL, space at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF


The OASIS general meeting for November:


		COMPUTER VIEWS OF SPACE

		 Dr. James Blinn, JPL


Dr. Blinn will be speaking on the process of computer animation 
as used for the Voyager missions to Jupiter and Saturn.  Computer
animation is used to plan camera sequences and for working out
the orientation of the spacecraft.

Saturday, Nov. 20th, 7:00 pm
Will be held at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Von Karman Auditorium
(Take the Berkshire Off Ramp of the Foothill Freeway in Pasadena-
La Canada, then left on Oak Grove Road to JPL.  People at ISI-
there is a map posted on the window in my office)


Admission is free, Guests are welcome




				Alan

-------

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

Date: 14 Nov 82 5:00:09-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: mhtsa!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle sighting
Article-I.D.: eagle.629
Via:  Usenet; 15 Nov 82 2:27-PST

Based on the orbital elements I obtained last night, I ran off some
optical sighting predictions for my sister and her husband who live near
Miami.  They successfully sighted the shuttle exactly where my program
had predicted they would. 

The shuttle was unmistakable. It was very bright white, and moving west
to east much faster than an airplane would appear to move.

Phil Karn

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 13:44:47-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Phone Charges?
Article-I.D.: inuxa.168
Via:  Usenet; 15 Nov 82 3:17-PST


Does anybody know what the charges for the 900 number to listen
in on shuttle communications are? I know you get socked with a 50
cent fee initially, but what is the charge per minute? A guy could go
broke if he gets to caught up in the action.

                                        Ron Meyer
                                        inuxa!rrm
                                        Bell labs - Indy

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 13:15:17-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: SRB Recovery
Article-I.D.: inuxc.513
Via:  Usenet; 15 Nov 82 3:21-PST

	Apparently they are having difficulty in getting the 
SRB's back again. Poor weather conditions on the ocean is giving
the recovery crew's a great deal of trouble keeping the SRB's 
floating.


					Fred
					BTL/ Indy

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 15:13:56-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: SRB Recovery Delayed
Article-I.D.: alice.1105
Via:  Usenet; 15 Nov 82 3:23-PST

Recovery of the two STS-5 SRB's was delayed at least one day today
as rough seas snapped two air lines attached to the boosters.  It
will take a day to pump out the water from them and then tow them
back to Port Canaveral.

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

Date: 14 Nov 82 0:04:39-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: SRB's Retrieved -- Spacewalk Postponed
Article-I.D.: alice.1112
Via:  Usenet; 15 Nov 82 4:02-PST

Two recovery ships today brought the STS-5 SRB's into Port
Canaveral, from where they will be shipped to their manufacturer
for refurbishment for use on a later flight.  The retrieval
was delayed a day due to rough seas.

Meanwhile, NASA has postponed until Monday tomorrow's planned
spacewalk.  The postponement came after William Lenoir called
in sick with motion sickness.  If worse comes to worse and he
is still not better by Monday, Joe Allen could take the walk
alone, but that would bend mission rules which call for a
two man EVA.  NASA broke radio silence after the astronauts had
gone to bed tonight to instruct them to swap Monday's schedule
with Sunday.

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

Date: 15 Nov 1982 1751-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Wings but no feet  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

	Date: 12 November 1982 01:40-PST (Friday)
	From:  Allan M. Schiffman <Schiffman at SRI-KL>
	Subject: "High Frontier" -- National defense from space

			. . . .

	The concept is, for those who haven't heard, to use space platforms for
	gigantic energy weapons (and 1000+ target tracking systems) suitable
	for anti-ballistic missile defense.  I haven't heard what kind of
	weapons have been proposed, but I assume particle beams and
	fission-pumped lasers are among the ideas.

I sometimes wonder if it ever occurs to some people to do a little
reading before launching into massive flames about subjects like this.
Apparently, all Mr. Schiffman knows of High Frontier is what little he
has seen on television.

The basic concept of HF is not to launch massive battlestations, but rather
hundreds of small (6 or 8 fit into a shuttle cargo bay) satellites, each
equipped with dozens of interceptor missiles.  These missiles are tipped
with small non-nuclear explosive charges.  The satellites also contain
a sensor array, used for detecting ICBMs on their boost phase.  When
a missile is detected, and it has been decided that it is hostile, 
one or more of the interceptors is launched, destroying the missile
long before it can hit any ground target. 

The idea of HF is to produce a workable ABM system without developing
new technology.  Thus, particle beams and lasers are not major considerations
at this point.  Another primary point of HF is to develop a space based
industrial capability, using the same vehicles and techniques needed to 
put up the ABM system.  

	The proponents claim TOTAL invulnerability for the platforms against
	ground-based weapons, and near-total (I assume) protection of the
	country.  No doubt construction will require all the space-industrial
	technology that has been discussed on this list -- moon-mining,
	asteroid-mining, "construction shacks", mass-drivers, whatever.

Sigh.  Let me quote from the High Frontier report:

	''With regard to impermeable or invulnerable defenses, there never
	has been, nor ever will be a defensive system which could meet
	such criteria.  Such perfectionist demands ignore the purposes
	of defenses and the effects of strategic defense on deterrence.
	Defenses throughout military history have been designed to make
	attack more difficult and more costly -- not impossible.''

In addition, the High Frontier system is designed to be implemented
with existing technology, so lunar mining and the like is not what
they intend to do.  The system is also designed to be inexpensive, 
compared to the current arms race.  The report projects a total
cost of $35 billion spent through 1990.  Not $35B per year.  Total.
Does anybody know the corresponding numbers for MAD for the next
seven years??  I bet they are a lot higher than this.

	Well, I've said all this in order to say -- I think the idea is
	absolutely crazy!

I think it is absolutely crazy to make a snap judgement like that without
benefit of correct information.  There are certainly problems with the
HF proposal.  In all probability, it will never be implemented as it is
proposed in the report.  The question of de-stabilization is an important
one, and has not yet been properly addressed, to my knowledge.  But
it is most certainly *not* a crazy idea.  If we can find a path from
where we are today to a state of reasonable checks and balances between
our weapons systems and the Soviets, we will have won a great deal.
--Tom

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

Date: 14 Nov 82 4:07:03-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: mhtsa!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Updated STS-5 Orbital Elements
Article-I.D.: eagle.628
Via:  Usenet; 16 Nov 82 1:37-PST

Updated element set for STS-5, courtesy again of the Goddard Space
Flight Center.  (My friend there was very busy this evening.  He says
that they are the primary tracking facility at the moment because of a
power failure at Houson.  Rumor has it that somebody popping popcorn in
a microwave oven in the basement blew the fuses!)
Phil
----------------------------------------------
Satellite: sts-5
Epoch time:      82318.08417663
                 Sun Nov 14 02:01:12 1982 UTC
Inclination:       28.4655 deg
RA of node:        49.6153 deg
Eccentricity:    0.0003574
Arg of perigee:   266.3829 deg
Mean anomaly:     139.6376 deg
Mean motion:   15.86846206 rev/day
Semi major axis:   6689.27 km
Period:          90.746034 min
Apogee:             318.36 km
Perigee:            313.58 km

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 21:10:47-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: mhtsa!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: STS-5 orbital elements
Article-I.D.: eagle.625
Via:  Usenet; 16 Nov 82 1:57-PST

STS-5 orbital elements, courtesy of the Goddard Space Flight Center:

Epoch time: 82317.00027189 (Nov 13 1982 00:00:023.491 UTC)
Inclination: 28.4686 deg
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 57.6164 deg
Eccentricity: .0016157
Argument of Perigee: 263.4690 deg
Mean anomaly at epoch: 52.2153 deg
Mean Motion: 15.86499833 orbits/day

some secondary numbers:
Semi Major Axis: 6690.25 km
Anomalistic Period: 90.765846 min
Apogee: 327.71 km
Perigee: 306.09 km

I derived these elements from a position-velocity fix taken at the epoch
time.  I understand that the measurements of position are accurate to
about 100 meters.

Phil

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

Date: 14 Nov 82 9:45:18-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Power Failure at Mission Control
Article-I.D.: alice.1113
Via:  Usenet; 16 Nov 82 2:02-PST

A small part of Mission Control experienced a power failure last
night around 2300 EST.  The reason was not as exciting as the
one Phil posted, unfortunately.  The reason released by NASA for
the outage was a small electrical fire on the first floor of the
building.  The loss of power was confined to a small part of Mission
Control and it was very quickly fixed.  Among the controls affected
was the monitor that shows where the Columbia is in orbit; that function,
along with the others affected, was switched to the backup control
center at the Goddard Space Center.

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

Date: 11 Nov 82 8:44:20-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!pfc at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: EAFB Lakebed Scratched - (nf)
Article-I.D.: whuxlb.789
Via:  Usenet; 16 Nov 82 2:04-PST

#R:alice:-109400:whuxlb:4600003:000:29
whuxlb!pfc    Nov 11 08:11:00 1982

So much for the DRY lakebed

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

Date: 12 Nov 82 16:29:14-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihps3!ihldt!ll1!sb1!mb2b!uofm-cv!paul at Ucb-C70
Subject: Is anyone there?  Intelligent life defined.
Article-I.D.: uofm-cv.147
Via:  Usenet; 16 Nov 82 2:06-PST

	Definition of intelligent life forms:


	They know where they are on the food chain, and put other species
	in the feed bag.

	For example, people eat goats, cows, etc.  Chickens' chow = pebbles,
	anything on the ground.

	You don't see a herbivore (i.e. vegetarian) pull into a 7-11.  Only
	for carnivores (carnivores = incisor teeth better than bicuspids and
	molars).  As they say, don't grind -- bite!

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

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

17-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #47
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 47

Today's Topics:
			     money for space
			     Michner's SPACE
			    Stayers and Goers
			 the occultation of Mars
			     LANDING OF STS5
  ''And that's the way it is, from 200 miles above the Pacific. . . .''
			   SPACE Digest V3 #46
		     Star's loss of angular momentum
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 November 1982 07:03-EST
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>
Subject:  money for space
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Foo, vidgames at least keep the kids off the streets.
Lez tax cigarettes ($30,000,000,000/yr?), booze 
($80,000,000,000/yr) and advertising (>$70,000,000,000/yr)
for some SERIOUS space money.  Who could argue with 2%?

And of course the bell-making industry (>$3,000,000/yr).

For who will put the bell on the cat?  (I volunteer.)

Oded

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

Date: 15 Nov 1982 0809-PST
From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL>
Subject: Michner's SPACE

Has anyone read it?  Would they be willing to provide a book review?

						Dick

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

Date: 15 Nov 1982 (Monday) 2009-EDT
From: HAGAN at Wharton-10 (John Hagan)
Subject: Stayers and Goers

"The meek will inherit the earth;
     the rest of us will go to the stars..."

--Kid.

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

Date: 16 Nov 1982 1346-PST
From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL>
Subject: the occultation of Mars

Does anyone know whether and when it will be visible from the San
Francisco area?

						Dick

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

Date: 16-Nov-82 13:58-PST
From: DAUL at OFFICE  
Subject: LANDING OF STS5
To: space at mit-mc
 
It was just beautiful!  The sun was just rising as the shuttle and it's chase 
plane swept in front of the orange sunrise with elongated gray high clouds.  It 
was worth the trip from San Francisco!  --Bill

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

Date: 16 Nov 1982 1421-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: ''And that's the way it is, from 200 miles above the Pacific. . . .''
To:   space at MIT-MC  

This week's issue of TV Guide claims that many TV networks and newspeople
are jockeying for the position of covering a future Shuttle mission . .
as passengers.  The big mission will be covering the flyby of Halley's 
Comet, using the Shuttle as an observation platform.  But there is also
talk of putting a reporter in orbit before then.  Walter Cronkite, Jules
Bergman and many other well-known news folk are said to have volunteered.

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

Date: 16 November 1982 22:22-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #46
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

Tonight's MacNeil/Lehrer report was about recombinant DNA R&D.
It gave me an idea for another way lots of ETI could have developed
without filling the galaxy. Suppose each society with space technology
also has recombinant DNA technology, and suppose each at some point
develops a powerful world government which uses recombinant DNA
technology to eliminate from its populace the desire to revolt against
the government. To prevent wild variations from breeding elsewhere and
then coming back in force, the desire to travel away from the central
star&planet system is spliced out. Eventually the central government
collapses but not before the species is totally devoid of the desire
to spread thru the galaxy. Due to the genetic predisposition to
following the central government and not revolting, similar central
governments develop from time to time and purge the race of mutations
and ancient revolt-genes that hadn't been found previously, so over
long time the race stays quite pure by our standards. Finally after 10
billion years the star burns out and the race dies, but meanwhile it
has lived a long stable life over an appreciable fraction of the age
of the Universe.

Perhaps when we go out to other stars we'll find many such races on
random yellow stars.

P.s. the concensus of people interviewed seemed to be that combining
human and non-human genes into a hybrid organism is so abhorrent
to most people that it ought to be made totally illegal. I don't think
it's abhorrent at all. In fact I think making hybrid monkey-humans or
dolphin-humans etc. might be an interesting way to create organisms
that can comunicate with both humans and the other species, acting as
translators/interpretors in our attempts to communicate with other
races. Once we develop the technology we might apply it to ETIs we
meet and thus develop Earth/NonEarth hybrids. These hybrids would also
expand the variation of creatures in which our genes find themselves,
thus enhance the survival of our genes thru difficult circumstances
where a pure race might uniformly die out (such as some disease or
environmental poison). Funny how parochial most people are.

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

Date: 17 November 1982 01:34-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Star's loss of angular momentum
To: RWG at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Apparently just about all yellow-dwarf stars like the Sun have low
angular momentum whereas blue-giant stars (the kind that burn
themselves out in just a few million years then go supernova and turn
into neutron stars or black holes) spin rapidly as predicted from the
nebular hypothesis (whorlpool of gas&dust condenses to form star and
planets at same time, with central portions spinning fastest because
everything is at orbital velocity).

The question has arisen why class K stars (yellow dwarfs)
have lost the angular momentum they should have had originaly.
Observations lately have shown that most of them have strong stellar
winds, whereas class B and A stars (blue giants) don't. A theory is
that these winds take angular momentum away from the star. Here's a
quote from the current (November) Sky&Telescope, page 438:

"Probably some physical mechanism common to all these stars, such as
strong winds of ionized particles interacting with interstellar
magnetic fields, has slowed the solar-type stars but not the hotter B-
and A-type stars."

Unless for some reason type B and A stars don't have planets, or in
their short lifetime they haven't had time to slow down by tidal
action of the planets, it looks like wind (ejection of particles)
beats out planetary-tidal drag as an explanation, but this question
isn't yet really answered for sure.

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

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

18-Nov-82  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #48
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 48

Today's Topics:
			JS&A, High Frontier, SRB's
			Half of us, half of them.
		      Taxes,Video Games and Ma Bell
		       Shuttle suits & 100% oxygen
				   ETI
			   Dolphin inelligence
				   CETI
			  (more) Money for Space
	      Someone's there.  Intelligent life redefined.
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #46
		  the occultation of Mars (November 19)
		       Shuttle communications heard
			   NASA news briefings
		     Cause of Houston electrical fire
			     EVA (spacewalk)
			Spacewalk Set for Tomorrow
				Re: PHONE?
		  Shuttle Coverage on Cable News Network
				  PHONE?
			 Re: NASA news briefings
			   Re: Michner's Space
		       Re: 3 year shuttle schedule
		       Orbital Element explanation
		       Re: 3 year shuttle schedule
			       black holes
				JPL photos
		     To John Hevelin (sorry readers)
			   Landing Preparations
			 TV commentator overkill
			     Re: Black Holes
			    Re: Phone Charges?
		    Re: SRB separation pictures - (nf)
		      Re: NASA news briefings - (nf)
		 Re: envirnoment, elections, intelligence
			       **LANDING**
	       Re: Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)
		      311 Shuttle Launches Planned?
			     shuttle landing
		    Re: 311 Shuttle Launches Planned?
	       Re: Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 1982 0622-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: JS&A, High Frontier, SRB's
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)

A mixed bag of comments/queries:

A recall hearing or reading about the JS&A "passengers on shuttle
flights" business; it is supposed to be in their latest catalog
(which I have not yet received, if I am still on their mailing
list).  I cannot recall the source of my info, but the idea was
that it was NOT for 6 "rich" people; they were selling lottery
tickets at $20 each for the 6 seats.  I think the idea was that
they were going to buy payload bay space and somehow put in
people instead of cargo.  This was all totally WITHOUT the
approval of NASA or anyone with any authority in the matter.  The
NASA people were said to be "displeased" with the whole thing...

(JS&A is Jules [?] Sugarman & Associates; a very successful
mail-order company specializing in high-tech gadgets and the
like.)

High Frontier: I caught the last few minutes of a local public-TV
interview show which was discussing the topic, and had General Graham
as the main guest.  The costs were estimated to be from $15
billion in three-five years to $50 billion over 12 years; the
first figure would apply if the project were performed in a
"Manhattan-Project" style of isolated total committment; the
latter figure would apply if the same tasks were performed using
the normal military procurement and planning and managerial
techniques used for current weapon systems acquisition.

SRB's: What ever happened to the recovery process for the last
shuttle flight's SRB's?  Were they completely recovered, partly
recovered, or is the effort still under way, or was it abandoned?
Last I recall was that only part of one or both were retrieved.

Regards, Will Martin

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

Date: 17 Nov 1982 1025-EST
From: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS
Subject: Half of us, half of them.
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

	Human / non-human hybrids are fine if we have successful mutations,
but would you like to be the one who has to kill a failure.  Would this be
considered murder (or half-murder)?  Clearly, we can't try any hybrids until
we can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that we will get what we want.  Practical hybrids
are far off in the future when we will fully understand our DNA.  Perhaps we
never will reach this point of understanding (I hope).

	The suggestion of human / ETI hybrids makes an important assumption:
life out there is based on carbon and DNA.  I doubt that our DNA could be
joined to work with the genetic material of a Si based life form.

	Even if we did make these hybrids, what makes you think that
communication will be possible?  Much of our speech comes from the mind and
not our physiology.  If a hybrid were made from the genes of a Frenchman and
an Englishman, would he be bilingual?  Furthermore, would he have tea and
croissants or crepes and kidney pie?  Would he drive on the left or right?

					Robert Kassel-------

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 9:37:47-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sytek!gi!frank at Ucb-C70
Subject: Taxes,Video Games and Ma Bell

How about a tax of 25% of all cocaine sold in America and Puerto Rico??
That would really raise a lot of money for the space program.

					Frank Ayala
					General Instrument Corp.
					Research & Development Lab
					Chandler,Arizona

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

Date: 17 November 1982 1349-EST (Wednesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30)
To: gutfreund.umass-coins at udel-relay
Subject: Shuttle suits & 100% oxygen

1.  Why 100% oxygen?  The astronauts need a certain partial-pressure of
    oxygen, but they do not need sea-level pressure.  If the suit were
    further inflated with nitrogen, then it would balloon much worse
    than it does, and the astronaut could move only with difficulty, if
    at all.

2.  A small amount of CO2 to avoid hyperventilation?  I think it would
    be the other way around.  The urge to breathe is caused by the
    presence of CO2, not the lack of oxygen.  If the oxygen supply is
    perfectly normal, while amount of CO2 is abnormally high, then the
    person would hyperventilate.  (Maybe a small amount of CO2 to
    avoid hypoventilation, but that could be supplied by the astronaut
    himself, given a proper flow rate.)

3.  Sea level pressure?  No.  It sticks in my mind that Apollo used
    5 psi of pure oxygen, and that the suits used lower pressure than
    that.  I don't know the pressure used in the Shuttle suit, but
    I am confident that it would not be over 5 psi.

4.  Why 2-piece suits?  So you can mix & match upper and lower body
    sizes, and not have to tailor a new suit to each astronaut.

5.  Why use a pressure suit at all?  Well, for one thing, at low
    enough pressure (above 60,000 feet), the blood will boil at
    body temperature.  I don't know that the example of the feet
    demonstrates anything.  The soles of the feet experience overpressure.

-- David Smith @ cmu-cs-a

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

Date: 17 Nov 1982 1457-EST
From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ
Subject: ETI

	Perhaps when we go out to other stars we'll find
	many such races [that have no desire to explore
	space] on random yellow stars?

				Robert Elton Mass

Oh?  If what you say is indeed common, then it's quite likely that
WE won't have a desire to explore extrastellar space in a few
decades  (assuming, of course, that the type of genetic engineering
that you talk about is possible -- after all, it's hard to believe
that the desire to explore is unrelated to general intelligence
rather than to some specific gene site).

Adam Mellis (dvw.agm @ MIT-OZ)

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

Date: 17 Nov 1982 1500-EST
From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ
Subject: Dolphin inelligence
To: space at MIT-MC

Although there are many well-documented reports of dolphins 
rescuing drowning humans (by carrying them toward shore), there
is an odd lack of data on dolphins that have carried humans
AWAY from the shore.  I hope that the reason is obvious, ...

I don't believe that we can attribute intelligence to dolphins
until (if ever) we are able to communicate with them.  The chances
at present for this look slim.

Adam Mellis (dvw.agm@mit-oz)

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

Date: 17 Nov 1982 1503-EST
From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ
Subject: CETI
To: space at MIT-MC

It appears that a popular belief concerning Communication with
Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence is that we aren't smart enough
to talk to them, i.e. they're using tachyons, while we're still
using MERE photons.  However, if they really want to talk to us
it would seem likely that they would use as many different
methods as they could.  Even within the electromagnetic spectrum
there are a number of wavelengths that seem particularly good
for interstellar communication.  These would include the
celebrated "watering hole" around 21 cm, so named because
there's little interference from any galactic sources (dust
clouds, etc.).

... unless, of course, they had the equivalent of a Proxmire, ...


Adam Mellis (dvw.agm@oz)

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

Date: 17 Nov 1982 1505-EST
From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ
Subject: (more) Money for Space
To: space at MIT-MC

I was listening to the radio a few days ago, and they decided to stop
playing music and put on some stupid "comedy" records.  The first was a
recording of "Father Guido Sarducci" (the spelling program didn't know the
name either) of Saturday Night Live fame.  Well, he managed to start
talking about space exploration, and said something to the effect that he
was going to start the "people's space program."  (No relation to the
PRC.)

His basic idea was that since he needed 250 million $, he would get 250
million people each to donate a dollar, and then have a lottery to
determine who out of those 250M would get to go into space.

Of course, in a sense, that's why the federal government is there -- to
collect money (taxes) for our common good.  But since the government seems
to be neglecting (amoung other things) the space program, I think that
some sort of lottery of this nature could be a good fund-raiser for NASA.
And if THEY don't want to try that, then I'm sure that some random
individual could really profit by holding a lottery for a ride into space.

After all, wouldn't you be willing to pay $5 for even a small chance to
live out a dream?


I recently read in this net, something to the effect that a company is
trying to get NASA to sell them space for human riders on the space
shuttle.  The person reporting this indicated that the people would have
to be RICH.  Well, they might just have to LUCKY.

Adam Mellis (dvw.agm@oz)

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

Date: Wednesday, 17 November 1982  18:46-EST
Sender: DVW.CYNDI at MIT-OZ
From: DVW.CYNDI at MIT-MC
To:   Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Cc:   SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: Someone's there.  Intelligent life redefined.


Re: "They (intelligent life) know where they are on the food chain,
and put other species in the feed bag."

     Now hold it!!

     Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with the food one eats.
I, for one, have not experienced any loss of intelligence since
becoming a vegetarian.  Although, by your definition, I should have.
In fact, I would consider our species far more intelligent if we realized
that feeding grain and other vegetable matter to animals we raise for
food is a highly ineffcient way to feed a starving world.

     There is a big difference between having the correct teeth with
which to eat animals, and actually eating them.  (Human teeth are
marginal, anyway).  And, as to this entire argument, I would find a
horse (an herbivore) far more intelligent then a chicken (which eats
bugs) or even a mink or ferret (both of which eat flesh).

     True, it does take intelligence to know where one is on the food
chain.  It's what you do with that knowledge that makes the
difference.

                                   Cyndi Norman   
                                       M.I.T.       

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

Date: 17 November 1982 1914-EST
From: Lars Ericson at CMU-10A
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #46
To: Space-Enthusiasts@mc, lars.ericson

Does anybody have a reference to the "High Frontier" report referred to
in this digest?  One contributor quoted from it, so I suppose it is
unclassified.

Thanks,

Lars

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

Date: 17 November 1982 19:39-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: the occultation of Mars (November 19)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: KING at KESTREL

Sky&Telescope has tables in the November issue. Places from
Boston/Chicago/Denver North get a near-miss instead of an occultation,
while Halifax NS gets an almost grazing occultation (22:28-22:37 UT =
9 minutes) and Norfolk VA gets a moderately short occultation
(22:04-22:34 UT = 30 minutes).  San Juan PR gets an almost central
occultation (lasting from 22:01 to 23:32 UT = 1 hr 31 min).  Places in
the West get the incident in broad daylight (Los Angeles gets it
19:52-20:40 UT which is about noon local time; whereas Norfolk VA gets
it 22:04-22:34 UT which is just after sundown local time).  The only
places listed which get an after-sundown occultation are Halifax NS,
Norfolk VA, and San Juan PR.  Columbia SC and Miami are borderline,
with the sun setting partway thru the occultation.  Therefore, if
you're East of the Columbia/Miami line and simultaneously South of the
Boston/Denver line, you'll get an occultation in dark. West of there
but still South of the Boston/Denver line you need binoculers or
telescope to see a daylight occultation, North/East you get a pretty
non-occultation, and North/West you lose completely with a daylight
miss.

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

Date: 13 Nov 82 13:17:18-PST (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle communications heard
Article-I.D.: eagle.627
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 18:38-PST

I am currently hearing Columbia/Houston communications being relayed on
28.6 Mhz.  Part of the problem in hearing them is that the astronauts
have been very quiet.  The transmissions do not include the "broadcast
status report"  that the 900 number does.

Phil Karn

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

Date: 14 Nov 82 13:53:46-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: NASA news briefings
Article-I.D.: eagle.630
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:28-PST

If you get a chance, listen to the end-of-shift flight briefings via the
900 number.  Its very enlightening.

Right now, a couple of hotshot journalists are driving the power failure
subject deep into the ground.  They seem to think their holy mission
is to uncover sinister government coverups and plots.  They keep asking
the same questions over and over again, and the flight directors keep
giving the same perfectly acceptable answers: that it was not critical
to the mission, that there was no reason to wake up the crew just to
tell them, etc. etc.

But some journalists are never satisfied.  I have a lot of admiration for the
flight directors who seem to remain candid and unflappable in the face of
all this crap.

I am really disgusted with the shoddy journalism practices that cover
the shuttle missions.  Even when a network condescends to granting the
masses a tiny shred of a video transmission, some so-called "science
editor" insists on talking over the audio with comments like "Gee, I wonder
what that is that the camera is looking at", when if they would just SHUT
UP AND LISTEN, they might find out.  They might even learn something (but
I doubt it.)

Phil Karn

PS. There. I feel much better already.

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

Date: 14 Nov 82 16:09:53-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Cause of Houston electrical fire
Article-I.D.: eagle.631
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:37-PST

Contrary to my earlier unofficial rumor, the cause for the
electrical fire that took the tracking displays down at Houston last
night for about 2 hours was a faulty splice in aluminum building wiring.

There are four power busses feeding control room equipment, one of which
was feeding the tracking computers.  This was the one that failed.

The outage occurred because it was not a critical portion of the flight.
Had it been (e.g., launch, landing), they would have been running a
backup computer on a different circuit and changeover would have been
almost instantaneous.

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

Date: 13 Nov 82 15:42:16-PST (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!stocker at Ucb-C70
Subject: EVA (spacewalk)
Article-I.D.: pur-ee.647
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:40-PST

If any of you out there hear exactly when the EVA is going to take place,
(from tv news, etc) please post on the net so we'll all know when to watch
tv tommorrow, assuming the networks pick it up.

thanks,
dave stocker
pur-ee!stocker

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

Date: 14 Nov 82 23:13:42-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Spacewalk Set for Tomorrow
Article-I.D.: alice.1114
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:51-PST

William Lenoir said he was feeling much better today, and NASA
has scheduled the spacewalk for tomorrow morning starting at
0750 EST.

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

Date: 13 Nov 82 16:16:04-PST (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.sbm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: PHONE?
Article-I.D.: purdue.449
In-Reply-To: Article pyuxcc.387
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:53-PST

     Sorry to post old news, but there  have  been  a  couple  of
requests  for  the  phone  number  to  listen  in  on the shuttle
communications since the article announcing it was posted,  so  I
thought  I  would post it for newcomers and people that don't pay
attention. It's 900-410-6272. 

                                        Steven B. Munson
                                        Purdue University

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

Date: 14 Nov 82 17:03:57-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!duke!unc!kh at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Coverage on Cable News Network
Article-I.D.: unc.4257
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:52-PST

If you get Cable News Network on your TV, you should watch for
the coverage of the shuttle. This (Sunday) morning, they carried
the live TV from the shuttle every time it passed over the U.S.
They had it for about 15 or 20 minutes at a time. They showed
them eating a meal (breakfast or lunch?), still no coffee with
cream. On the next orbit, they were conducting some of the student
experiments.

Though they call it "live" coverage, it must go through two or maybe
three satellites before it gets to your house. The signal could be
delayed over a second.

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

Date: 13 Nov 82 0:47:21-PST (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!mhuxm!pyuxjj!pyuxcc!djs at Ucb-C70
Subject: PHONE?
Article-I.D.: pyuxcc.387
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:08-PST

What is the 900 phone number ??? Please!!!
Also, what are the charges?

Thank you

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 9:27:53-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!stocker at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: NASA news briefings
Article-I.D.: pur-ee.650
In-Reply-To: Article eagle.630
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 20:38-PST

For those of you that didn't get up early this morning or for some other reason
missed what was supposed to be the EVA (spacewalk) this morning, you didn't
miss much as both the suits Joe Allen was to use had pressurization trouble.
They still might make it tonight but it doesn't sound promising.  Joe talked
to Houston about it but TV watchers couldn't tell what they were saying because
the stupid commentators talked right over them trying to tell us what Joe was
saying.  NBC went right to a commercial in the middle of the video, CBS had
a habit of showing live pictures from their commentator in Houston (BIG DEAL).
Amen too Phil Karn and his complaints about shuttle news coverage.

dave
pur-ee!stocker

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

Date: 17 Nov 1982 2053-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Re: Michner's Space
To: space at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

As I recall, several messages regarding Michner's novel were on
the list some time ago (a couple or three months maybe?)

Can anyone (Ted Anderson maybe) remind us how to tap the
archives?
-------

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 8:26:28-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!heliotis at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: 3 year shuttle schedule
Article-I.D.: rocheste.234
In-Reply-To: Article tekcad.259
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 21:17-PST

Does anyone know when a ship other than Columbia will first be used?

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 23:36:24-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Orbital Element explanation
Article-I.D.: eagle.633
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 21:39-PST

I got some questions about the STS-5 orbital elements I posted over the
weekend.  Here is a narrated explanation of what each of the numbers
mean.  I hope this answers some questions.

Numbers such as these are available for free from NASA for virtually any
object in orbit.  With some tracking programs (available in BASIC,
Fortran and C) you can plug in these numbers and determine where the
satellite is (or will be) at any given time and when it will pass above
your horizon.

Phil Karn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
STS-5 Orbital elements (no longer valid due to maneuvers, unfortunately)

Epoch time:      82318.08417663
This is the time at which all following numbers are valid.  It is
represented as year 82, day of year 318, fraction of day .08417663 (in
Universal Time.) In English, this time was Sat Nov 13 21:01:12 1982 EST.

Inclination:       28.4655 deg
The angle of the orbit plane to the earth's equator.  This is determined
by the "launch azimuth", ie, the compass direction in which Columbia travels
during launch.  The lowest possible value, which gives maximum payload
capacity, is obtained by launching due east and is the latitude of the
launch site.  Unfortunately, low values mean poor visibility from
northern observers, since Columbia never travels farther than 
28.4655 degrees north or south latitude.

RA of node:        49.6153 deg
The Right Ascension of the point in the orbit where the Columbia crosses
the earth's equator going south to north.  Right Ascension is the
astronautical equivalent of longitude, except that it doesn't rotate with
the earth.  This value is the only one that varies with the launch time,
and is one of the factors that sets a "launch window."

Eccentricity:    0.0003574
A measure of the ellipticity of the orbit; the definition is the same as
in analytic geometry. 0 = perfect circle, 1 = parabola, 0 < e < 1
is an ellipse, and > 1 is a hyperbola.  The Voyager "orbits" past
Jupiter and Saturn have eccentricities > 1.

Arg of perigee:   266.3829 deg
The angle in the orbit plane between the northbound equator crossing and
perigee (closest approach to earth).  A value of 0 means the perigee
passage occurs as the shuttle crosses the equator going north;
values between 0 and 180 mean perigee occurs in the northern hemisphere,
etc.  Argument of perigee is undefined for a perfectly circular orbit
(which of course "never" happens.)

Mean anomaly:     139.6376 deg
The position of the shuttle along its orbit at the instant of the
epoch.  This value increases at a constant rate from 0 to 360 deg
over an orbit, regardless of the orbit's eccentricity.

Mean motion:   15.86846206 rev/day
The number of orbits (perigee passages, actually) in one day.  This sets
the period (time to complete an orbit) of the satellite.

Semi major axis:   6689.27 km
Half the straight-line distance between the apogee and perigee points.
Knowing the Mean Motion allows you to compute the semi-major axis, and
vice versa.

Period:          90.746034 min
Time of one orbit from perigee to perigee.  Equal to 1440/mean motion

Apogee:             318.36 km
Maximum altitude above the (oblate) earth.

Perigee:            313.58 km
Minimum altitude above the (oblate) earth.

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 22:24:20-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: 3 year shuttle schedule
Article-I.D.: alice.1128
In-Reply-To: Article rocheste.234
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 21:51-PST

Challenger will make its debut flight in January, 1983.  Discovery
will be unveiled in December, 1983, and will fly sometime early
in 1984.  Atlantis will roll out in December, 1984, and will fly
sometime in 1985.

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 15:48:10-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at Ucb-C70
Subject: black holes
Article-I.D.: inuxa.169
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 21:59-PST

Why don't we get into a discussion on black holes. I am interested in this
topic, but I must admit I have very little knowledge of the subject. I
believe a quite interesting and entertaining discussion could be carried
on over this net. Also, I have a specific question for anyone on the net 
who may be knowledgeable about black hole theories. I have seen reference
on the "horizon" of a black hole. What is this exactly and how (if it is
related) does this effect the Schwartzchild radius????? If anyone replies
to this, please post it on the net instead of sending me mail. Then the
rest of the world can benefit from the theory.

					Ron Meyer
					inuxa!rrm
					Bell labs - Indy

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 15:58:39-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at Ucb-C70
Subject: JPL photos
Article-I.D.: inuxa.170
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 22:02-PST

Does anyone know if JPL photos are available to be purchased by the general
public. I'm interested in pictures from the Mariner, Viking and Voyager
missions. I would like the complete frames which contain not only the
picture but contain specific information on the picture (e.g. any processing
for constrast enhancement) content.


					Ron Meyer
					inuxa!rrm
					Bell labs - Indy

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 0:39:03-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!sii!mem at Ucb-C70
Subject: To John Hevelin (sorry readers)
Article-I.D.: sii.233
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 22:10-PST

c
My apologies to you people who are reading this article, which
is directed primarily at John Hevelin.  I have been publicly
insulted (I must say that it is most unpleasant), and I feel
that that deserves a public reply.  

-----

I expressed no opinion on Proxmire.  I made no indication of my
personal stand on arms reduction.  I gave no pro-nuke view.  Nor,
importantly, did I give insults (such as "mindless"), use irrelevant
descriptions ("passing wind"), or use obvious sophisms ("knee-jerk").

The phrase "knee-jerk" comes from the involuntary muscle reaction
caused by hitting the tendon just below the knee.  It is used to
describe standard reactions to standard stimuli; especially to
statements or actions which are not particularly well thought out.
It refers especially to your whole article, since you reacted to
your own thoughts, and not to what I said.

Name-calling is a technique used when intelligent arguments are
either not to be had, cannot be originated by the name-caller,
or are not expedient.  This technique is unfortunately effective.

Humorous but meaningless phrase-turning is used to show the wit
of the person making the remark.  It has no other merit.

-----

If you would care to discuss interpretations of defense-oriented
referendums, I would be happy to do so by mail, following
a public apology from you.

Mark Mallett

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 7:34:25-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Landing Preparations
Article-I.D.: alice.1129
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 22:28-PST

The Columbia was preparing to land today, after yesterday's fail
attempt at a space walk.  Officials are calling the mission a complete
success though.  Landing is scheduled at 0934 EST at EAFB.

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 9:20:24-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!cwc at Ucb-C70
Subject: TV commentator overkill
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1145
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 22:38-PST

And football fans think Howard Cosell is bad!!

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 5:12:32-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!deimos!houxi!5941ux!kek at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Black Holes
Article-I.D.: 5941ux.145
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 23:09-PST




In response to inuxa!rrm (Ron Meyer) question on black holes:

The German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild determined the field equations
describing space-time in the vicinity of a spherical lump of matter. His
solution states that if the mass is compressed within a certain radius
(called the Schwarzschild radius) space-time is so severely distorted
that nothing, even light, is able to escape.  To put it another way,
the "local gravity" cannot be overcome.  The Schwarzschild radius (R)
for a body of mass M is:

              R = 2GM/c**2

where G is a constant of proportionality known as the universal
gravitational constant, and c is the velocity of light. Thus the
Schwarzschild equations define how compressed a body would have to
become to create a black hole. (Actually, Michell and Laplace hinted
at such a possibility nearly a century before Schwarzschild put it
all together).

A body thus compressed (e.g., a collapsing star) disappears from view
since light is unable to escape from its surface (it has become a
black hole).  The boundary of the black hole is called the "event
horizon" because nothing inside can ever pass to the outside. The
event horizon is a one-way boundary: you can check in but never out!
This boundary coincides with the Schwarzschild radius. Even if the mass
inside continues to collapse into a "singularity", the event horizon
remains the same, the Schwarzschild radius. This holds true for
simple non-rotating black holes. Rotation adds some complexity.

As a couple examples, the Schwarzschild radius for our sun is just
under 3 kilometers (it's nominal radius is about 700,000 km) and
for the Earth is a little less than one centimeter!

Three good references on the subject that I have read are:

     GRAVITY, BLACK HOLES AND THE UNIVERSE
     Iain Nicolson
     John Wiley & Sons - New York 1981

     MONSTERS IN THE SKY
     Paolo Maffei
     The MIT Press - Cambridge, Mass and London, Eng (1980)

     BLACK HOLES - THE EDGE OF SPACE, THE END OF TIME
     Walter Sullivan
     Anchor Press / Doubleday - Garden City, NY (1979)


                                         Ken Kepple
                                         Bellabs - Holmdel
                                         5941ux!kek

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 11:16:16-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxb!genesis at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Phone Charges?
Article-I.D.: ihuxb.163
In-Reply-To: Article inuxa.168
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 23:25-PST

The fee for the first minute is  $0.50 , with each minute thereafter
is at $0.35.

Russ Sehnoutka
BTL - IW
ihps3!ihuxb!genesis

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 10:46:26-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!sb1!mb2b!uofm-cv!cja at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: SRB separation pictures - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uofm-cv.153
In-Reply-To: Article whuxlb.790
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 23:28-PST

The camera observing the SRB separation was ground based, and was
used on all STS missions to track the shuttle, except in one case
where it was too cloudy to get a good picture.  By the way, this
camera was also used to provide long-distance visuals of the Apollo
launches, but staging occurred at a much greater altitude so the
coverage wasn't as spectacular.

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 9:31:06-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!kline at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: NASA news briefings - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1048
Via:  Usenet; 17 Nov 82 23:49-PST

#R:eagle:-63000:uicsovax:2400002:000:574
uicsovax!kline    Nov 15 08:11:00 1982


   Journalists are famous for getting scientists and engineers steamed.
Another good example I heard was at one of the press briefings for
Voyager II. This was right after they had discovered the `braided' F-ring
around Saturn, and the two `shepherd' moons S26 and S27. To add to the
sensationalism of the photos from the spacecraft by saying that the F-ring
didn't obey the laws of physics. One of the JPL scientists exploded with "Of
course they obey the laws of physics!!!" He was really hot, too. The
journalist, unmiffed, left the comment in the report to his editor.

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 12:55:15-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: envirnoment, elections, intelligence
Article-I.D.: inuxd.208
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3998
Via:  Usenet; 18 Nov 82 0:32-PST

Maybe Jerry Brown's defeat was a loss to space endeavors, but I can only think
that his only contribution to space was to occupy too much of it.  Any one who
has said he looked to the late, nearly-forgotten Mao as an inspiration is an
idiot, no matter that he may happen to be right on ony one other subject.  A
visionary?  No way; Brown contributed as much to personal freedom as Andropov.
--arlan andrews, btl/abi, indy.

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 15:45:56-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: **LANDING**
Article-I.D.: alice.1130
Via:  Usenet; 18 Nov 82 1:33-PST

(Sorry this is a bit late)

The Columbia touched down to yet another picture perfect landing
today half a minute early, at 0633 EST.  Weather conditions were
less than ideal, with a heavy cloud cover, but Vance Brand put
the Columbia down right on the center line on runway 22 at EAFB.

NASA plans to ferry Columbia back to KSC next week, and then it
will face a 10 month overhaul, providing space for Spacelab and
taking out some of the bulky test flight equipment.  Also next
week, Challenger is scheduled to move to the VAB.

NASA has rescheduled STS-5's canceled space walk until STS-6 or
STS-7, aboard the Challenger.

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 12:43:14-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1049
Via:  Usenet; 18 Nov 82 1:39-PST

#R:uwvax:-67000:uicsl:11100004:000:194
uicsl!preece    Nov 15 09:05:00 1982

I imagine that given the dairy subsidy program Proxmire so ably defends,
it doesn't make much difference whether we buy the cheese or not; what we
don't buy in the store we buy as taxpayers...

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 8:38:15-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!zeppo!whuxk!houxm!houxa!houxn!bsk at Ucb-C70
Subject: 311 Shuttle Launches Planned?
Article-I.D.: houxn.310
Via:  Usenet; 18 Nov 82 1:52-PST

  I just finished reading a news article that mentioned the above fact in
  passing.   What does "311 Shuttle Launches Planned" mean?  They certainly
  aren't booked, are they?   For that matter, how many are currently booked?
  Finally, how far ahead is ththe 311th launch?

  Thanks,

  B. Katz  BTL Juniper Plaza
           houxi!houxn!bsk

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 10:00:03-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!stan at Ucb-C70
Subject: shuttle landing
Article-I.D.: floyd.837
Via:  Usenet; 18 Nov 82 2:10-PST

Last night on the news, they said that the shuttle used 2/3 of the paved
runway before coming to a complete stop.  How long is the runway?

Evidently Nasa would like a crosswind landing as soon as possible.  Is this
to test out the craft's airworthiness??

Also, will this newsgroup be named net.columbia forever, even though
Columbia will not fly for another year?  How about net.shuttle?

								Stan King

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 15:54:02-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: 311 Shuttle Launches Planned?
Article-I.D.: alice.1132
In-Reply-To: Article houxn.310
Via:  Usenet; 18 Nov 82 2:01-PST

Shuttle launches are booked (i.e. the cargo bay is already rented
out) up until 1987 or 1988.  This in no way covers 311 shuttle
launches though!

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 12:43:14-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Re: PROXMIRE WINS!  space loses! - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1049
Via:  Usenet; 18 Nov 82 1:39-PST

#R:uwvax:-67000:uicsl:11100004:000:194
uicsl!preece    Nov 15 09:05:00 1982

I imagine that given the dairy subsidy program Proxmire so ably defends,
it doesn't make much difference whether we buy the cheese or not; what we
don't buy in the store we buy as taxpayers...

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

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

19-Nov-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #49
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 49

Today's Topics:
	  Administrivia: "The time has come", the walrus said...
			  Re: black holes - (nf)
			    Post Mission Facts
	      Someone's there.  Intelligent life redefined.
			    a minor correction
			  Re: Wings but no feet
			       black holes
		     To John Hevelin (sorry readers)
			     Shuttle overhaul
			   Landing Preparations
			   Re: shuttle landing
			   Re: Shuttle overhaul
				  spades
			 Did anyone listen to...
		      JS&A shuttle passenger lottery
			     Re: 100% oxygen
		    High Frontier and Michener's SPACE
		 High Frontier, Internetwork mailing list
			      ABM systems   
			      Why Atlantis?
			      Several Things
			      Shuttle radio
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 1982 1548-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Administrivia: "The time has come", the walrus said...
To:   space at MIT-MC  

A problem has developed with this mailing list.  Perhaps you've noticed.

By way of introduction let me explain how I fit in.  I am the moderator of
the SPACE Digest.  This is a mailing list that (at least originally) lives
on the ARPANET.  Incoming messages are queued and each night automatically
compiled into digest form and sent out to the distribution list.  I
exercise (almost) no editorial control over the content of this list since
it is compiled automatically.  I do keep a fairly close eye on it, but I'm
not usually logged in at 3AM when it gets sent out, so many messages go
out without any human oversight.  If this digest wasn't automatic I
wouldn't have time to run it.

The usenet connection to the space mailing list is fairly recent.  Mail
sent to SPACE@MC is forwarded to a file at S1-A for incorporation into
that day's digest and also to an address at SRI-UNIX where it enters the
unix network bulliten board system.  They get the individual messages not
complete digests.  Unix messages sent to the space BBoard, are forwarded
to the same file on S1-A for inclusion in the digest that the ARPANET
people see.

Yesterday's digest came to more than 1000 lines.  This is very much longer
than is optimal and something must be done to cut down on the volume.  Few
people can afford to spend the time required to pore through such a mass of
material on a daily basis.

If you've checked a recent digest you may have noticed that virtually all
the message come from usenet people.  One reason for this is probably that
there are a lot of people out there.  There are something like 1-2 hundred
direct recipients of the ARPANET digest.  Judging from the relative
volumes of mail there must be many thousands of usenet readers.  Another
part of the explanation is that the bboard system encourages fast
interaction.  The once-a-day nature of the digest is itself an effective
limiter of the volume of mail.  Perhaps most people don't realize that
every offhand comment sent to SPACE gets read by a thousand people.

Some people have suggested that I shut off the usenet connection.  If I
did this the volume of SPACE mail would drop to almost nothing.  Virtually
all the mail comes from unix sites.  Others have suggested that I try to
restrict the subject matter.  This is clearly appropriate in some cases,
but much harder to guage in others.  Another problem that agravates the
situation is that most ARPANET people cannot reply directly to senders of
messages from unix sites.  It seems that the usenet-arpanet connection is
substantially oneway.  Thus people are tempted to send messages that could
be personal replys via the whole digest.  To make things still worse,
there of often considerable delay in usenet messages arriving at the
arpanet.  Thus we get to see messages about the space walk days after the
shuttle has landed.  We also get several replies to questions or replys to
questions we never saw since the large delay introduces appearent
causality violations.

Ideally, I would like to see the oneway problem fixed.  Second I would
like to make the unix people observe the once-a-day digest character of
the arpanet digest.  This might encourage more thoughtful and considered
submissions and discourage offhand comments that don't contribute much of
substance.  Third, I would like to remove the hugely variable time delay
between sending a message and its appearence in the digest.  Sadly, NONE
of these things are likely to come to pass, at least not soon.

I solicit ideas for solutions to these problems, especially from
knowledgable unix people.  If the arpanet community shuts off this flood
of unix mail the unix people will mostly fail to even notice.  We must
come to some sort of accomodation.  One thing I can do is to try a
discourage topics of discussion that stray too far afield.  If I notice in
time I can strike messages from the digest.  When I do this I will try and
send a message to the sender letting them know.  But I usually can't reach
senders on usenet, so their messages will just get deleted.  Since I can't
talk to those people such dicussions will rage on usenet without help from
the arpanet community, and will inevitably overflow into the space digest
anyway.  I can send out public messages to everyone trying to discourage
errant topics but I doubt the efficacy of this.

Mostly I can only urge people to realize that they are talking to lots of
other people when they send messages to SPACE and that brevity, precision
and relevance are the key concepts.

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 20:34:32-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: black holes - (nf)

I've heard that an outside observer can determine the mass and charge 
(among other things) of a black hole.
How do the gravitrons and virtual photons get out?

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 17:30:24-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Post Mission Facts

Confirmed flight time for STS-5 was 5 days, 2 hours, 14 minutes, and 25
seconds, bringing Columbia's logged flight time to 24 days, 16 hours, 3
minutes, and 8 seconds.  Columbia will begin its trip back to KSC on 21
November.

STS-6, Challenger's first flight, is now scheduled to launch on 24
January, 1983, but NASA says that may be delayed a few days as work on the
Challenger, officially designated Orbiter Vehicle 99, is a bit behind
schedule.

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

Date: 18 November 1982 07:30-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Someone's there.  Intelligent life redefined.
To: DVW.CYNDI at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Hear! Hear! Glad you jumped on those people trying to link carnivore
habits with intelligence. True it takes some intelligence to hunt an
animal for food, but we're talking about much more intelligence than that
when talking about SETI and CETI and technological civilization developing
space. The difference between that level of technological competance and
simple carnivore hunting cunning is not necessarily related to the food
you eat.

I do dispute one point you made, that people who choose to feed a starving
planet with non-animal foods are smarter than those who choose to feed
them with meat. It seems to me that a truly smart society would find a way
to raise meat in space and deliver it to Earth so that everyone could have
a choice about what to eat instead of being forced to be vegitarians or
starve, because of a vegitarian version of Stockman being in control of
things. With abundant sunlight to power things in space, and sufficient
development of relevant technology, it would seem the "Green Revolution"
(energy used to make fertilizer, used to make plants grow abundantly, used
to feed animals, used to feed humans) possible once again.

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 21:45:52-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70
Subject: a minor correction

The correct name of the organization responsible for the second satellite
launched by the latest shuttle mission is "Telesat Canada".  Not "Telsat
of Canada" or "Canada Telsat".  Sorry, Adam.

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 13:22:43-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!rabbit!wolit at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Wings but no feet

Sorry, Tom, but I agree with Allan Schiffman.  As reported a few weeks ago
in Aviation Week, the High Frontier ABM interceptors are only one part of
a comprehensive ABM proposal that DOES include fission-pumped laser
weapons, exoatmospheric and low-altitude missiles (like Nike-X or LoADS),
WOULD involve 1000+ interceptors, and WOULD end up costing well over $35
billion over the life of the project.  (Besides, anyone who believes DoD
cost estimates this early in a project probably also believes in the Tooth
Fairy, Easter Bunny, and Great Pumpkin as well.)  And whether or not it
ends up costing less than MAD over the same period of time is irrelevant,
since not only are the generals not about to give up MAD for a
pig-in-a-poke ABM system, but once we put up an ABM system like this, you
can be damn sure the Rooskies are gonna do the same, and then you're gonna
see an arms buildup in spades.  The best way to protect our deterrent
force (and population) from a 1st-strike attempt is to get our ICBMs out
of those fixed targets and off the continental US.

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

Date: 18 November 1982 07:52-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: black holes
To: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

It seems to me that there have been so many fine articles in recent
years in Scientific American and other popular journals about black
holes that there's no need to duplicate that information here.  From
recent messages I'm beginning to think most of you people on USENET
never read any scientific magazines (black holes) or watch the evening
news on TV or even read this digest (when first non-Columbia STS will
be).

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

Date: 18 November 1982 07:55-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: To John Hevelin (sorry readers)
To: decvax!ittvax!sii!mem at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Shouldn't defense-oriented referendums be in ARMS-DISCUSSION instead
of in SPACE??

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 9:39:14-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxe!dalka at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle overhaul

What exactly is NASA going to do to the shuttle???
I've heard they're going to add lots of new equipment to it.
Someone I talked to went so far as to say they were going to put
new computers in it........

				Ken Dalka
				ihuxe!dalka

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

Date: 18 November 1982 08:03-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Landing Preparations
To: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I'm getting weary of NASA officials calling something a "complete
success" after an obviously major aspect of the flight was a failure.
That space walk is important! It can wait, but then the info to be
derived must wait, there's less time to process the info for when it's
needed, there's less confidence in the equipment, and if an emergency
comes up in STS-6 there's no prior practice at all whereas if this had
been a success and STS-6 had an emergency the spacewalk would have had
prior practice from STS-5. I can accept "virtual total success" for a
Voyager that returns so much new info beyond our wildest expectations
(a mission to Jupiter is extended to Saturn and only one piece of
equipment half-breaks-down, and we discover thousands of ringlets),
but I cannot accept "total success" in STS-5 when one of the four
major activities fails completely (the four are: launch&recovery,
deplying commercial satellites, on-board scientific/engineering
experiments, and spacewalk trial).

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 16:08:27-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: shuttle landing

The crosswinds test is merely to see how the shuttle, which has no power
on landing, handles when landing in crosswinds, which prevail at the strip
at KSC, where NASA would eventually like to land shuttle missions.

As for net.columbia, we have been over this many times before, and the
consensus was not to change it but to stay with net.columbia for reasons
of sanity and to honor out first space shuttle.

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 16:11:35-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Shuttle overhaul

The overhaul will basically consist of the following:

1) Equipment used for the test flights (to gather data on the shuttle's
   performance) will be removed.

2) The ejection seats will be taken out of the cockpit.  These were
   deactivated for STS-5, but NASA will actually now take them out to
   make more space in the cockpit.

3) The cargo bay will be strengthened.

4) More space will be provided in the cargo bay, and it will be outfitted
   to carry Spacelab.

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 14:37:44-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: spades

We already have an arms race in spades. The next bid is no-trump.

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

Date: 18 November 1982 11:37-EST
From: Thomas L. Davenport <TLD at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Did anyone listen to...
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

...the rebroadcast of shuttle communications on the lower ham radio
bands?  Is it worth my while to set up my old receiver to check it out
the next time around?

-Tom-

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

Date:     18 Nov 82 11:57:08-EST (Thu)
From:     (BAD ADDRESS) wmartin at BRL(BAD ADDRESS) , martin at BRL
To:       space at Mit-Mc
Subject:  JS&A shuttle passenger lottery

JS&A is Joseph Sugarman & Associates (not Jules, as I had guessed before)
and their toll-free number is 800-228-5000 (in Nebraska 800-323-6400).
The catalog says to call the latter number (800-323-6400) "for inquiries";
in Illinois, call (312) 564-7000. The corporate offices are in Northbrook, IL
(60062).

I just called JS&A about this and got the following information:

They are holding such a lottery, but it doesn't cost anything to enter.
The $20 comes from this: they are selling some sort of poster and certificate
for $30.00, or $20 if you order something else at the same time. I have to
wait until I receive the catalog to find out details on this. As a separate
promotion, you send them your name and address and are entered in the
lottery for being one of the "first civilian passengers" on the shuttle.

Don't know any more until I receive the catalog. Call them and ask for
one; it's a neat catalog full of gadgets and nice to have for itself alone.

Will Martin

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

Date: 18 Nov 1982 12:27:19-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: gutfreund.umass-coins at udel-relay
Subject: Re: 100% oxygen
Cc: space at mit-mc

   re (2), I expect you mean hyp\o/ventilate; emergency oxygen for revival
(e.g., on football fields, at fires) is 5% CO2 because without that the
breathing reflex would shut down entirely.

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

Date: 18 Nov 1982 1118-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: High Frontier and Michener's SPACE
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The High Frontier report is available from:

High Frontier
Suite 1000
1010 Vermont Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

It costs $15.  The L-5 Society sells them as well as a lot of other
valuable space literature.  

Michener's SPACE:  I thought it was excellent.  The book describes
more of the WHY of space exploration and the Space Program then
the HOW.  For instance, you learn of the set of fortunate coincidences
that caused the Marshall Space Flight Center to get its name, and
what amazing results that name change had.  There are also (surprisingly)
quite a few ''inside'' references to science fiction.  I thought
it was easily worth the hardback price.

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

Date: 18 Nov 1982 1300-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: High Frontier, Internetwork mailing list
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

High Frontier:

Many objections I had to the original message about High Frontier have
been already addressed.  I have talked with Gen. Graham (sp?) a few times.
He did NOT start out by being a space advocate regardless of speculations to
the contrary.  He did NOT originally think space was wonderful,  his 
original motivation was to find a stratagy different from MAD, and asked:
What areas are we ahead of the Russians in?  He came up with space as
the answer to a problem, then raised some money and hired some people to
work out the technical details. 

Many of us start out with the premise that space is good, then find ways
of justifying it, it is gratifying when someone looks for the solution to
a problem, and comes up with space as the answer.  

Also, as has been mentioned, the purpose of the system is not to be
able to defend totally against any and all ICBMs, but to defend against
some of them.  He orignally expected defense against only 10% of the missles,
the fact that it turns out to be 70 to 90% makes it even better.  More on
this issue can be found in the High Frontier Study.  (It is availible from
High Frontier, I dont have the address handy, but can get it at home is
someone wants it).

********************************************

Another point:

This mailing list is an INTERNETWORK mailing list.  That means there is 
more than ONE network worth of people reading it.  In particular, this
is NOT the net.space list only.  There are many people on the Arpanet reading
this and to us it is the SPACE mailing list.  It has seemed to me for
some time that many people in USENET are totally unaware that there are
other people out here, and talk about do such and such to net.space
or creating another spinoff list called net.foo.  Also, a number of times
it seems we in the arpanet get messages which are responses to other messages
that we have never seen.

Sorry for the flame (sort of) but this has been getting annoying for
some time.

				Alan

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

Date: 18 Nov 1982 1316-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: ABM systems   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Perhaps I should define the terms I have been using.  High Frontier
is the name of a proposed ABM system that was generated by the Heritage
Foundation, and subsequently presented to the president.  It consists
of a point defense (Swarmjet missles) for missle silos and a bunch of
orbital platforms with interceptor missiles.  It was designed with
quick implementation and low cost in mind.  In addition, it is designed
to foster the growth of space industry, as well as be a defensive weapons
system.  It was not generated by the Department of Defense.  There are
indeed proposals for orbital ABM systems involving particle beams
and lasers, but they have been originated by DoD.  These systems do
little, if any, good to the national economy or to the promotion of
industrial expansion into space.

It seems to me that if we can reach a stage where both the US and
USSR have a reasonable ABM system, we will be a lot better off than
we are today.  The system becomes stable (more or less) at that
point, rather than the critically damped system of MAD.  In addition,
the presense of an ABM system gives you one more step of indirection
before The Big One.  Another chance for everybody to calm down and
think things through. 

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

Date: 18 Nov 1982 1657-EST
From: TYG at MIT-OZ
Subject: Why Atlantis?
To: space at MIT-MC

Does anyone out there know why the fourth shuttle is being named
Atlantis?  If we have to name a shuttle after a mythological
location, how about Barsoom?!

tom galloway

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

Date: 18 Nov 1982 2144-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Several Things
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: dlenahan at USC-ISIE
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

1.  A double-amen to Karn et al comments about commentators.  At least
Jane Pauly tried, though.  After I had yelled, "Shut up" six or  seven
times,  Jane  finally  said,  "Why don't we just be quiet and listen?"
And she and her  two  colleagues  (one  of  whom  was  a  trained  but
not-yet-flown  astronaut)  actually  were  quiet for a short time (too
short, albeit) while the STS audio was piped through.

2.   JS&A catalog Number 9 (the latest one) does offer a shuttle ride.
By their own admission, they have "petitioned NASA  to  be  the  first
company to book commercial air travel on the Space Shuttle" but "...we
haven't received a firm answer  from  NASA  regarding  our  position."
What  the  ad  really is is a ploy to sell a Mark Rickerson poster for
$30 (or $20 if you buy anything else).  If I  recall  correctly,  JS&A
pushed  Mark  Rickerson  posters  a couple years ago with some sort of
deal wherein subscribers would always be offered first chance at a new
poster  at  a  guaranteed  low price, even when Mark Rickerson becomes
famous and his poster-prices go way way up.

3.  For Ron Meyer, and others interested in black holes:  depending on
what level you want to start reading at, may I  add  these  titles  to
those suggested by Ken Kepple?

THE COLLAPSING UNIVERSE, Isaac Asimov; Walker  &  Company,  New  York.
(typical Asimov easy-to-read treatment)

BLACK HOLES AND WARPED SPACETIME, William J.  Kaufmann, III; Freeman &
Company, San Francisco.

and second the motion to consider Walter Sullivan's BLACK HOLES -  THE
EDGE OF SPACE AND TIME.

4.  Would it be possible  for  everyone  (some  do  this  already)  to
indicate  their  location either in the header element or signature of
their  messages?   Some  message  origins  belie  the  sender's   true
location.  (After my smart-alerk remark about Boston accents to REM of
MIT-MC's remark about Valley Girls, I found out that REM is  nearly  a
neighbor here in California).

5.  For  those  interested  in  Phil  Karn's  explanation  of  orbital
elements.  The inclination as determined by launch azimuth is obtained
quite simply:  i  =  arcos  (cos(lat)*sin(az)),  with  lat  being  the
latitude  of  the launch site and az being the launch azimuth (north =
0, east = 90 etc).  If you  happen  to  know  the  dimensions  of  the
ellipse  but  not  the  mean  motion,  you  can backtrack via period =
sqrt((a/178.77)**3) where a is the semi-major axis in nautical miles.


Dennis
-------

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

Date:      18 Nov 82 20:54:03-PST (Thu)
From:      Iglesias.UCI at Rand-Relay
To:        space at Mit-Mc
Subject:   Shuttle radio
Via:  uci; 18 Nov 82 23:10-PDT

Does anybody know if the radio transmissions from the next shuttle flight
will be rebroadcast like they were this time?  Does anybody have any
suggestions for a particular brand/model of radio to pick these up (I
know it has to be able to pick up shortwave;  I am in the LA area so
I would be picking up the broadcast from the station around here)?

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

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

20-Nov-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #50
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 50

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Half of us, half of them.
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #48
				  Suits
			 Spacewalk May be Delayed
			   Eyewitness of Launch
			     A book on space.
			   Re: Shuttle Overhaul
			    shuttle phone cost
			    Spacewalk Canceled
			       Space Suits
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #46
			    They are not alone
		    Spacewalk at Least Postponed Again
			  Re: Wings but no feet
	      It takes more than teeth (to give you smarts)
			    Columbia Condition
			    shuttle velocity?
			 shuttle velocity (again)
			 Pressureless Space Suits
			Re: vanVandenburg flights
		       Vandenberg Launches Endorsed
		      Re: Spacewalk Set for Tomorrow
		       pressure and the human body
			     Re: 100% oxygen
			    Re: Phone Charges?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 1982 1206-EST
From: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS
Subject: Re: Half of us, half of them.
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 18-Nov-82 0711-EST

	You have me all wrong.  I am not saying that we should not "play" with
recombinant DNA.  What I am saying is that we will never be able to understand
our own DNA enough to perform the type of experiments you suggest.  As far as
birth defects go, many people who know that their child will have a birth defect
abort the pregnancy because they feel it is not right to bring such an 
individual into the world.  Furthermore, would you allow your wife to take DES
knowing that it would harm your child?  I think not.  I am merely stating that
we cannot experiment with DNA research in the same manner as we experimented 
with electricity.  The risks outweigh the benefits.

						Robert Kassel



-------

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

Date: 19 Nov 1982 1212-EST
From: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #48
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 18-Nov-82 0616-EST

The next shuttle mission will use a new orbiter....



			CHALLENGER
-------

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 11:24:27-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekcrd!iddic!evp at Ucb-C70
Subject: Suits
Article-I.D.: iddic.121
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 17:23-PST

The suits run at 2.5 psi pure oxygen. This puts the partial pressure of
oxygen at the same value as it is at sea level. The reason they run at
such a low pressure is that the joints of the suit (especially at the
fingers) are very difficult to move at higher pressures -- the internal
pressure tends to straighten the joints out, and the astronaut has to
fight against this force to hold onto tools, etc.

The reason they don't want umbilical cords on the suits is fairly obvious:
the first time you tried to grab a spinning satellite and got your oxygen
supply wrapped up in the solar panels, you'd be out of a job. (A new
definition of 'severance pay'). This is in fact a major part of the Solar
Max rescue mission. The satellite is spinning at 1-2 rpm, and there is
no way to stop it from spinning because the fuse that blew controls the
stabilization mechanisms. The astronaut will cruise over to the satellite,
grab onto it, then use the suit maneuvering system to stop the spinning.
The Canada arm will then move it into the payload bay, where the fuses
will be replaced.

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

Date: 13 Nov 82 12:11:07-PST (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Spacewalk May be Delayed
Article-I.D.: alice.1108
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 17:33-PST

Due to William Lenoir's increasing case of space motion sickness,
NASA may delay tomorrow's spacewalk until Monday.  Also, Joe Allen
could perform the EVA alone.  Though Lenoir has it more severely,
Robert Overmyer also experienced space sickness, but he is over it
now.

Meanwhile, NASA expects the two SRB's to be in Port Canaveral by
late afternoon.

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 13:12:45-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: mhtsa!alice!npoiv!eisx!pyuxbb!tomh at Ucb-C70
Subject: Eyewitness of Launch
Article-I.D.: pyuxbb.300
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 17:32-PST

I flew down to Fla. to watch the launch.  Got a spot on the
Banana River about 8 miles from the lauchpad.  Lots of people
and excitement before the launch.  Lots of fire, smoke, and
noise during the launch.  It was AWESOME.  Much better in person
than on TV.  Definitely worth the trip.

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

Date: 18 Nov 82 10:52:23-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxy!houxw!rbc at Ucb-C70
Subject: A book on space.
Article-I.D.: houxw.108
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 18:17-PST

On the subject of the "High Frontier" (of which I know little).
There is a book that goes into the use of space for power, industry
and war.  It is called "Space Power" by G. Harry Stine, (Ace Books).
It covers the entire industry neeeded before the use of space will
become reality.  The coverage of the military uses (read anti-missile)
are very good.  The discussion of the financing was covered better then I
could follow.  The impact on society of space is coverd with
comparisons to the past (such as how the invention of the horse stirrup
changed the way war was fought).  Even though I bought the book by mistake
(it LOOKED like a SF-novel) I couldn't put it down.  I now believe in
power satelites...

	Robert (where can I buy a shuttle ticket) Connaghan
	Bell Labs Holmdel, N.J.
	houxw!rbc

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 15:57:36-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!deimos!orion!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ihuxb!genesis at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Shuttle Overhaul
Article-I.D.: ihuxb.165
In-Reply-To: Article inuxc.519
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 18:48-PST

I heard that they also plan to install a galley
for cooking in Columbia.  Don't ask me how they
can cook up there, seems to me everything would
just fly around, regardless where they put it.

Russ Sehnoutka
BTL - IW
ihps3!ihuxb!genesis

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 10:15:38-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!stan at Ucb-C70
Subject: shuttle phone cost
Article-I.D.: floyd.834
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 18:50-PST

I heard that the cost for the 900 number for shuttle com was 50 cents
for the first minute and 35 cents for each additional minute.

The NYT had a tiny article yesterday in which an AT&T spokesman in
Bedminster said that about 500,000 calls were received, including
150,000 from overseas.  Overseas calls were not allowed on previous
flights.

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 15:49:54-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Spacewalk Canceled
Article-I.D.: alice.1117
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 18:51-PST

NASA today canceled the planned 3.5 hour space walk because of
a faulty fan that should circulate oxygen through one of the
two space suits.  Officials suspect a water buildup to be the
problem but could not remedy it despite troubleshooting efforts.
The astronauts made plans to come home tomorrow, on schedule,
landing at 0933 EST at EAFB.  NASA is calling the mission a
100% success despite the spacewalk letdown.

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

Date: 18 Nov 82 7:29:16-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Space Suits
Article-I.D.: alice.1149
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 19:18-PST

NASA said that engineers yesterday duplicated one of the two
problems with the space suits aboard STS-5.  They reproduced
a pressure regulator failure; the regulator, supposed to provide
4.2 pounds psi pressure, only supplied 3.7 ppsi, the level it
gave on the flight.  The other problem, the failure of an
oxygen circulator fan, will be the subject of today's tests.

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

Date: 18 Nov 82 14:03:16-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #46
Article-I.D.: omsvax.222
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4139
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 19:56-PST

This is in reply to R. E. Maas' categorization of negative reaction to
the creation of human/non-human hybrid organisms as "parochial."  I
don't think that reaction is necessarily as thoughtless a reaction as
he seems to think.  There are severe ethical and moral questions in
creating a sentient being (if it's not, it won't fulfill the purpose of
translator) whose viability and quality of life is open to great
question.

Consider that many people reject the idea of allowing a genetically
damaged fetus to come to term or even be conceived, e.g. Down's
Syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, Huntington's Chorea, etc. etc.  Many
parents feel that it is immoral to bring a damaged child into the world
if a choice exists.  Recognize that we would have *NO* way of a priori
knowing how a hybrid sentient would perceive the world, or relate to
other sentients.  It's a widely held scientific opinion these days that
much of any animal's behavior and relationship to other beings is
rooted in its evolution and thus its genotype.  What does this mean for
a hybrid, especially one of the more exotic types where the non-human
genetic material is also non-primate?  What kind of life would the
creator of the hybrid be wishing on the created being?  It is certain
that in many ways such a being would be more alone than any human has
ever been.

The fundamental question is what obligations the creator of a life,
whether parent or biologist, has to that life, and what degree of
certainty is required.  That question is answerable, as are all the
knotty moral questions, by each person for himself alone.

I'm not myself necessarily opposed to the creation of hybrid
sentients.  There is a chance that such beings would be greatly gifted
by the expansion of their perceptions and relationships relative to
ours.  The issues are not, however, as simple as progress versus
parochialism.  It's essential that anyone considering actions with
consequences as important (for some one person, if not for the race as
a whole) as these consider all discussion very carefully before
deciding on action, and that he recognize the responsibility which the
action entails.

					Bruce Cohen
					...!intelqa!omsvax!bc

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

Date: 19 Nov 82 8:52:53-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!dps at Ucb-C70
Subject: They are not alone
Article-I.D.: omsvax.226
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 20:00-PST

If I were to try to advise other intelligences in the galaxy of my
existence, I would pick a clear and distinctive way to do it.  The
plaque used on Pioneer seems to me a muddy way to do it.  The message
is too high level and too dependent on understanding our way of
percieving the universe around us.

I would, instead, pick a tight focus transmission (e.g., masers or lasers),
aim it first at nearby stars, and send a unique transmission.  To make
as clear as possible that the transmission was not a natural phenomenum,
like a pulsar of complex period, I would send at least 3 channels with
distinct patterns.  The main channel, for instance, could send SOS in
good old morse.  A second channel, would send . -- ... ---- perhaps,
representing the first four integers.  The third channel might send
either a morse alphabet, or a sequence of binary numbers (how many bits
per number? how do you seperate numbers?  Do you use straight binary,
or a Gray code?).  The point of these three channels is to send a
set of very short, very repetitive (low-level) messages *each differing
from its companions in period* which will identify themselves as messages.
It is also hoped that the message is simple enough to be properly decoded.
Only after decoding these messages (a kind of rosetta stone) would any
transmission of text be reasonable.  Otherwise, the message would contain
too much information to be decoded, and contain too many assumptions
on the nature of decoding.  Yes, English (particularly written English)
is highly redundant, and analyzers can easily find its patterns, but the
analyzers are human and understand the channel and the type of messages
it is used for, and the redundancy is on a fairly high level.  An alien
coming on English text, and if in the form of radio transmissions it would
not even represent in form the senses we percieve the universe with *and
thus remove many decoding clues*, would lack the knowledge of how we convey
emotion and emphasis -- very important decoding tools for written English.

A maser/laser transmission would not, of course, be done from the Earth's
surface.  It could be done from, say, a geo-synchronous orbit, aiming at
different targets day and night. (The 24 hour period superimposed might
provide more interest for alien analyzers).  Or, if this leaves the
signal too swamped by Sol's output, the platform might have to be boosted
out of the plane of the ecliptic...how far out would be needed for a
transmission to Alpha Centauri or Barnard's Star?

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 7:30:32-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Spacewalk at Least Postponed Again
Article-I.D.: alice.1116
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 20:06-PST

NASA today detected a bad fan in one of the two space suits to be
used in today's space walk.  The fan is supposed to circulate
oxygen around the suit while the wearer is in space.  Despite
efforts by NASA to get it working, it wouldn't, and they put
off the spacewalk again, noting the possibility that it could be
canceled from this flight.  The flight could also be extended
up to two days, or one astronaut could walk alone.

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 16:13:45-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.els at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Wings but no feet
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.572
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4106
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 20:19-PST

    What is this High Frontier proposal???  Have I missed something??
I thought that it just refered to O'Niell's space colonization ideas!

By the way, that ABM satellite system sounds pretty good, even more so
since the Soviets have one of those type satellites up there already.
Could someone please provide a specific citation on that?  I believe
it was Cosmos 1276.


                          els[Eric Strobel]
                          pur-ee!pur-phy!els

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

Date: 16 Nov 82 12:18:58-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: UNKNOWN.G.asa at Ucb-C70
Subject: It takes more than teeth (to give you smarts)
Article-I.D.: populi.459
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 20:22-PST

     I don't see many intelligent life forms of any kind pulling into
7-11s....

     Being a predator is not an a priori indication of superior
intelligence, and it is certainly unfair to compare the intelligence
of wild predators with that of domesticated animals (which have had
intelligence bred out of them for thousands of years).

     Farley Mowat, in NEVER CRY WOLF (his classic book on wolf-caribou
interactions), found that the wolves were only able to catch and kill
very young, very old, or very sick caribou; the collective strength of
a herd of adult caribou made the bulk of the herd more than a match
for even a pack of wolves.  Furthermore, he discovered that when they
were unable to get caribou, the wolves lived off field mice -- a fine
alternative, but scarcely, I think, indicative of any superior
intelligence....

     Judging purely by teeth and position in the food chain, we might
consider sharks to be nearly our equals in intelligence....

     I would suggest that one standard for evaluating the
"intelligence" of a species would be the extent to which "social
programming" has replaced the limitations of "genetic programming" --
that is, those species who CONSCIOUSLY modify individual and
collective behavior for a CONSCIOUSLY chosen end are "more
intelligent" than species which rely solely on genetic programming
(however successful such programming is).  By this definition, homo
sapiens can be distinguished from ants, even though ants are a
highly-successful life form.  Thus, human beings might well choose NOT
to be predators for reasons of health, religious belief, or
environmental concerns.

                                   John Hevelin
                                   ucbvax!g:asa

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 23:11:39-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Columbia Condition
Article-I.D.: alice.1147
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 20:27-PST

The Columbia came back to Earth in near perfect condition after
STS-5.  Only two small tiles were missing, and two others were
nicked.  During the maximum braking test, one of the disk brakes
on Columbia's main landing gears locked and the tire on that
brake suffered a slow leak.  It did not burst though.  Meanwhile,
an investigation into the spacesuit problems has been launched,
and NASA hopes to have a reason for the failures of the suits
within a week and recommendations on what to do about them in
two weeks.  For the next three weeks, Brand, Overmyer, Allen,
and Lenoir will undergo the intensive post-flight debriefings
now common after shuttle flights.

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 19:05:10-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!dawes at Ucb-C70
Subject: shuttle velocity?
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.698
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 21:27-PST

~r collet

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 19:14:27-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!dawes at Ucb-C70
Subject: shuttle velocity (again)
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.699
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 21:27-PST

OOPS.  Sorry about previous null message.

If this is a question the answer to which is well-known, please
excuse my asking it, and answer by mail.  The question is
simple: what is the maximum velocity attained by Columbia
during the recent flight.

Robin Dawes
 ...decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!dawes

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

Date:     19 Nov 82 10:19-EST (Fri)
From:     Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
cc:       pourne at Mit-Mc
Subject:  Pressureless Space Suits
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 20 Nov 82 1:02-EST

re: David.Smith's replies

o The CO (2) is necessary, but to prevent hypoventilation (as was pointed
  out to me, football players get oxygen with 5% CO (2) otherwise the
  breathing reflex is inhibited)

o The NYT reports that shuttle suits were supposed to be at 4.3 psi
  but even though Lenoirs suit only got up to 3.7 psi it was acceptable.

This gets me to my disagreement with you. I do not know what 3.7 psi
translates to in feet, but I would not be surprized if it is over
the 60,000 feet. (these things tend to go exponential)

You state that "at low enough pressure (above 60,000 feet), blood will
boil at body temperature". Well perhaps this would occur for blood
directly exposed to the atmosphere. But the human blood pressure is
maintained at a constant pressure by the heart and associated arterio/
vascular system, it does not matter what the pressure outside the skin
is.

The question to me seems to be: can the skin maintain a 16 psi pressure
differential without the body bloating up, aterial dialation, and
a massive drop in blood pressure. If so, then I maintain that
pressureless thermal spacesuits are a viable alternative.

I have remembered the SF story with astronauts that do not need
suits, it is in an anthology by Jerry Pournelle: "High Justice".
(I highly recommend this anthology for those who want to argue
about the economic viability of space).

Do you have any independent justification for pressureless space-suits
Jerry?

					- Steven Gutfreund

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 12:17:07-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdchema!djo at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: vanVandenburg flights
Article-I.D.: sdchema.279
In-Reply-To: Article gsp86.157
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 22:36-PST

murray at intelqa;  the first sts launch from vandenberg will be in mid 1985.  they will launch south into a polar orbit.  

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

Date: 19 Nov 82 7:31:14-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Vandenberg Launches Endorsed
Article-I.D.: alice.1165
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 22:56-PST

The California Coastal Commission, after having received an Air
Force plan for water conservation at Vandenberg, yesterday
unanimously endorsed future shuttle launches from the base.
They had initially voted to reject the launches, fearing an
overconsumption of water by the shuttle program and the MX
testing program going on there.

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 12:31:36-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdchema!djo at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Spacewalk Set for Tomorrow
Article-I.D.: sdchema.281
In-Reply-To: Article alice.1114
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 22:58-PST

The spacewalk scheduled for Monday has been cancelled.

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

Date: 18 Nov 82 21:08:24-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: pressure and the human body
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.212
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 23:26-PST

The question of the human body's ability to withstand low pressures
has intrigued me for a long time. I have heard of the 100% O2
environment and wondered what absolute pressure is maintained. I
haven't seen an answer to this yet. Is it as low as the partial
pressure of oxygen at sea level ( 3+ psi )? This would surprise me, but I
can't think of any fundamental reason ruling it out.

I do see a big problem though, in exposing yourself to pressures
below the vapor pressure of water - about 2 psi at 37c. It seems to
me that you would just explode, or at least get an instant case of the bends
that would be a hundred times worse than any diver ever got. I know Arthur
Clarke has a pet theory that you could survive by holding your breath, but
I am extremely doubtful. Note that the ability to withstand large
overpressures has no bearing on this question.

Who has the straight poop?

Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Date: 18 Nov 82 14:07:05-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: 100% oxygen
Article-I.D.: eagle.635
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4110
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 23:37-PST

The reason pure oxygen is used in the shuttle suits is as follows:

Suits are easier to design and offer less resistance to movement if the
pressure differential between inside and out is as low as possible.
Using pure oxygen allows the suit pressure to be minimized while
maintaining the same partial pressure of oxygen for breathing.

You certainly don't want to use pure oxygen at normal (1 bar) pressure;
it represents a serious fire hazard.  I'm curious if the fire hazard
of pure oxygen at low pressure is still greater than air at normal
pressure, assuming, of course, that the oxygen partial pressures are the
same.  Does anyone know?

Phil Karn

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

Date: 15 Nov 82 12:22:34-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdchema!djo at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Phone Charges?
Article-I.D.: sdchema.280
In-Reply-To: Article inuxa.168
Via:  Usenet; 19 Nov 82 23:46-PST

$.50 per minute.

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

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

21-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #51
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 51

Today's Topics:
		       Oxygen use at low pressures
		    Re: Space walk under low pressure
		 Re: Shuttle hardware and software query
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 82 15:02:17-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!eisx!pyuxbb!jb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Oxygen use at low pressures

This information was gathered from several publications prepared for
glider pilots involved in high altitude soaring.  Generally speaking,
to maintain a reasonable level of arterial oxygen, supplemental
breathing oxygen is required above 12,000 feet.  At about 34k feet
ambient pressure is down to about 1/4 atmosphere, and you must be
breathing 100% oxygen.  Above that altitude, pure oxygen is required
at more than ambient pressure.  Oxygen systems used above 30k feet
effectively pressurize the lungs, reversing the normal ventilation
cycle (exhaling takes a conscious effort, while inhaling is passive).
Above about 50k feet, ~.11 atmosphere, a pressure suit or capsule is
required to pressurize the entire body.  Boiling of body fluids
becomes a problem at about 63k feet, .06 atmosphere.  It would seem
to me that breathing pure oxygen at .1 atmosphere would be asking
for trouble.  However, a pressure in the neighborhood of .2
would be workable.  Anybody have more information?
   By the way, the world record for altitude in soaring flight
is 46,267 feet, set in 1961 in the U.S.  At that altitude,
a pilot has about 12 seconds of useful consciousness if the
oxygen system fails.  My personal high point in a glider is
a little over 30k feet.

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

Date: 19 Nov 82 19:33:58-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Space walk under low pressure

I'm not sure where I read this (in this group?  New Scientist?  Science?
I'm not sure), but I seem to remember that there have been experiments with
putting chimps or other apes into **very** low pressure situations (like
maybe < .01 atmospheres), and the results seem to indicate that this is not
fatal, if it is short enough.  The figures I remember are that consciousness
ends in about 10-15 seconds for the chimps, and if they are revived at that
point they seem to have no particular long-lasting injury.  Presumably for
humans it would be a bit longer - maybe 15-20 seconds.  That doesn't mean
that the consciousness is very useful (it might be rather delirious towards
the end for example), but the popular science fiction ideas about "exploding"
or whatever are untrue.

There are several problems:  it is true that with extended exposure to very
low pressures bodily fluids will boil, causing dehydration and maybe injury
to the microstructure of cells.  Also, if exposure is due to explosive de-
compression, the victim would probably have quite a coughing fit to remove
the air from the lungs down to a lower pressure;  this would probably make
any type of emergency measures more difficult, especially in a 0-g environment
where the coughing would probably propel the victim away from safety or into
equipment.

I doubt very seriously that there would be any way to have "just a thermal
suit with an oxygen mask," because there would be some pretty severe problems
with the seal on the mask and with prolonged skin exposure to low pressure.
It might be possible to have some type of suit like a diver's wet suit which
had a very low pressure but which was more flexible than modern space suits,
though;  the difficulties with this would be in making something like that
which would seal properly and which wouldn't cause the joints to stiffen
under the pressure.

			Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University

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

Date: 19 Nov 82 16:10:14-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihldt!ll1!sb1!mb2b!uofm-cv!dave at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Shuttle hardware and software query

  (Of course, no guarantee, written or implied, about the accuracy of
any of the following, though I think it's correct.)

   There are five computers controlling the operation of the shuttle.
Four of them comprise the main system and the fifth is an independent
backup computer in case the first four completely fail.  All five
computers are IBM AP-101 aviation computers, developed in the
mid-1970's for military aircraft.

  The primary computer consists of four computers running the same
program.  Voting is done to determine the majority's result (sort of a
democracy).  A big problem is the synchronization of the computers to
make sure that they are in lock-step.  The backup computer is also
communicating with the primary computer at all times.  You might recall
that a timing problem between the primary and backup computers caused a
delay in the first flight in April 1981.

  IBM Federal Systems Division in Houston did the software for the
primary computer.  There are about half a million "lines of
instructions," whatever that means.  (.5M bytes of object?
 .5M lines of assembler?  .5M lines of Fortran?)  Rockwell did the
software for the backup.

  By having a different company do the backup software, chances of a
common software error in both programs were reduced.  (One could argue
that the backup computer should also have been designed and
manufactured by a different company to reduce chances of a common
hardware fault in all five machines.)

  I believe the computers are (or at least they should be) physically
located in different places on board the shuttle to reduce the chances
of fire, explosion, collision, etc. from destroying all computers
simultaneously.  Similarly, the power supplies are probably as
independent as possible.

  The computers on the shuttle (unlike previous manned spacecraft) are
central to the safety of the craft.  For example, the pilots do not
have direct hydraulic control of the aerodynamic surfaces (flaps, etc.)
on the shuttle.  Rather, the pilots give their commands to the
computer; the computer interprets those commands and drives the
surfaces.  If the computers should fail, there would be no control of
the shuttle during reentry.  Hence, the concern for the reliability of
the computers is much greater for the shuttle than has been the case
for previous space flights.

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

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

22-Nov-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #52
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 52

Today's Topics:
		      assorted questions on pressure
			     Shuttle Software
			   Re: shuttle landing
			     Shuttle Overhaul
			   NASA as a Pollyanna
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 1982 15:57:49-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: assorted questions on pressure

   (a) When I was taking flying lessons we were taught that the pressure
dropoff is about 1 inch of mercury per thousand feet at low levels. 3.7
psi (1 psi ~= 2 iom) sounds like a lot less than 60K feet, even allowing
for tapering.
   (b) Clarke specifically states (e.g. in "Take a Deep Breath") his
assumption that short-term survival in airless conditions would require
venting oneself as effectively as possible---emptying the lungs, leaving
the mouth wide open, and hoping that the eustachian tubes are clear so
you don't lose an eardrum; his guesstimate was that you could survive this
way for about a minute.
   (c) Skin as a barrier shouldn't stand anywhere near 15 psi for any length
of time. First, skin is quite porous; the surfaces that have the fewest
hair follicles (e.g., palms and soles) have the highest possible rate of
water loss through sweating. Consider that the cross-sectional area of major
arteries, which withstand a peak pressure of ~200 torrs (~4 psi), is mostly
wall---which in turn is much solider tissue than skin.

I'd like to see evidence countering this, but I doubt there will be any; I
don't remember enough physiology to explain clearly but I seem to recall other
mechanical reasons why non-coverall pressure suits wouldn't work.

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

Date:     21 Nov 82 14:09-EST (Sun)
From:     Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
cc:       harpo!ihnp4!ihldt!ll1!sb1!mb2b!uofm-cv!dave at Ucb-C70
Subject:  Shuttle Software

Not only did they have Rockwell write the backup software for IBM,
but they paid Rockwell a bonus for each bug they found in the IBM
software. I thought this was a very cute way to try and overcome
the "software reliability" crisis, -> pay a competitor to find
the bugs in your programs.

				- Steven Gutfreund (roi de soleil)

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

Date: 19 Nov 82 8:07:26-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!csc at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: shuttle landing

Our *first* shuttle was the Enterprise
-jan   ...watmath!csc

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

Date: 17 Nov 82 14:03:36-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!ralph at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Overhaul

My information on the shuttle overhaul indicates, among other things:

	o Removal of instruments installed for the test flights.

	o Additional crew seats an whatnot to allow up to 6 people on
	  board.

	o Modifications to the cargo bay to handle the European SpaceLab.

	o Upgrades to the main engines.

	o Addition/Upgrades to the onboard electronics, although the computers
	  were not mentioned specifically.

	o Replacement of some of the famous tiles with the new ablative
	  heat blanket.

I'd be interested in any other info anyone has. 

	Ralph Keyser	BTL Indianapolis	inuxc!ralph

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

Date: 21 Nov 82 15:57:36-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: NASA as a Pollyanna
Article-I.D.: watmath.3897
Via:  Usenet; 21 Nov 82 23:38-PST

	Robert's objections to NASA's hype are understandable, but, still,
think of NASA's position: anything other than a total success will bring
the Wisconsin Wolf down from the capital, waving golden fleece awards in
his right hand and budget cuts in his left.  Faced with that sort of reaction,
it's not surprising that NASA tends to regard any flight that doesn't kill
the astronauts or leave Columbia a smoking hole in the ground as a "total
success".
	The Pollyannish rhetoric of NASA has a long history, for precisely
this reason.  Remember, in 1962 Gus Grissom lost his capsule on reentry,
and NASA still called the mission - with all data lost - a "total success".
					Rick.

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

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

23-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #53
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:
	      Space may be for the rich after all... (JS&A)
			 Spacecraft environments
			    Low-pressure suits
			  Air Pressure in suits.
			    Piggyback Delayed
			    Pressureless Suits
		 Shuttle Arrives at KSC on Time After All
			   You could look it up
		       Oxygen use at low pressures
			     Shuttle Software
			   NASA as a Pollyanna
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 1982 0739-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: Space may be for the rich after all... (JS&A)
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]22-Nov-82 07:39:44.WMARTIN>

Received my JS&A catalog and have more info on the "shuttle
passenger" contest/lottery/whatever:

It doesn't cost anything to enter.  If you don't want to buy the
poster and certificate, you just send in your name and address to
get notified when they have more concrete information.  (If you
don't buy anything, I don't know how carefully they will preserve
this name & address, but who knows...?)  The certificate is a
thing with your name that says you have a reservation for
consideration on the first passenger flight, plus various fine
print which legally absolves them from doing anything.  The
poster is a silly-looking picture of a bunch of planets hanging in
space, all close together in a totally unrealistic and impossible
manner.  Poster and certificate are $30, $20 if you buy anything
else, too.  They look to me to be worth something less than $2.00,
actually...

OK, so what do you get if you "win"?  Reading the catalog page
and picking out the real meaning from the verbiage, it looks like
you get a chance to spend upwards of $5,000 to pay your way.
They compare it to the cost of an "around-the-world" tour (which
it is, actually, I guess...).  This factor was not mentioned to
me by the person on the phone when I asked them about it, nor was
it in the news items I heard or read.

All in all, it sounds much like a scheme to sell overpriced
posters...

Disillusionedly,

Will Martin

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

Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-IUS received by CMU-10A at 22-Nov-82 13:43:41-EST
Date: 22 Nov 1982 13:26:38-EST
From: Wilson.Harvey at CMU-CS-IUS at CMU-CS-A
To: space@mit-mc@cmua
Subject: Spacecraft environments

I remember a few years back, when the Apollo-Soyuz mission was about to take
place, that one of the big problems with linking the two spacecraft was the
Soviets used a different environment in their cabins.  Namely, I thought
that their cabin environment was close to 'normal' earth environment i.e. a
mixture of Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, and Oxygen.  I don't remember what the
pressures were.  I was just wondering why we use an environment of ~100%
Oxygen and the Soviets used a different one.  What are the benefits, if any,
of the one over the other.  (I do remember that the Soviets could perform
welding experiments in space where we could not).  Can anyone else confirm
this, or am I totally out of the ballpark?

					Thanks,
					    Wilson

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

Date: 22 November 1982 1413-EST (Monday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30)
To: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins at UDel-Relay>
Subject: Low-pressure suits

I see that my statement about boiling blood has been defended better than
I could have myself.  But let me point out that boiling has to do with the
fluid's vapor pressure matching the ambient gas pressure.  You can boil
water either by raising its vapor pressure (by heating it),
or by reducing the required vapor pressure (by lowering the ambient gas
pressure).

Back in the early '60s, National Geographic ran an article called
"The Long, Lonely Leap."  It was about a fellow named Kittinger who
tested a new high-altitude parachute system by jumping from a balloon
at 102,000 ft.  As he jumped, or just before, one of his gloves lost
pressure.  He landed with a hand painfully swollen to the point of
unusability.  I think it took something like four hours for his hand 
to recover.

Here are some standard atmospheric pressures taken from the Handbook of 
Chemistry and Physics.  (Sea level pressure is > 1000 millibar because 
the assumed sea level temperature is the pilot's 59F standard.)

   Altitude	    Pressure
Meters	 Feet	millibars   psi
-------------------------------
    0	    0	1013.25	  14.84
11000	36089	 226.32    3.315
20000	65617	  54.748    .802
32000  104987	   8.678    .127
47000  154200      1.204    .0176
75000  246062       .0245  3.59e-4

This shows that the 60000 or 63000 foot level provides considerably less
pressure than is in the astronauts' suits, even with Lenoir's down to
3.7 psi.

If we use this sea-level pressure and the 21% oxygen figure, we get an
oxygen partial-pressure of 3.1 psi.  So the astronauts are running a bit
rich.  Maybe they could use 3.1 psi of O2, plus another pound of N2, if
they want the suits over 4 psi.  On the other hand, maybe they need the
oxygen.  During Gemini, astronauts tended to fog up their face plates
while trying to do real work.

		David Smith

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

Date: 22 Nov 1982 1803-EST
From: Tony <Li at RUTGERS>
Subject: Air Pressure in suits.

The air pressure on earth decreases roughly by one p.s.i. per
thousand feet. Thus, the 4.2 p.s.i. is roughly about what you would
experience at 11,000 feet. This is certainly acceptable for work, but
you wouldn't want to do any wind sprints.  :-)

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

Date: 22 Nov 82 7:28:22-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Piggyback Delayed
Article-I.D.: alice.1186
Via:  Usenet; 22 Nov 82 18:16-PST

The Columbia completed part one of its flight back to KSC yesterday,
as its 747 landed at Kelly AFB in Texas for refueling.  But bad weather
there has forced postponement by one day of the last leg of the trip,
now set to land at KSC tomorrow.  Meanwhile, the Challenger's rollout
to the VAB is now scheduled for no earlier than 1800 EST today, due
to delays with a hydraulic line.

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

Date:     22 Nov 82 22:32-EST (Mon)
From:     Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
cc:       david.smith at Cmu-10a
Subject:  Pressureless Suits
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 23 Nov 82 0:59-EST

I'm still not sure I have gotton a definitive answer on this:

1. The linear heuristic that the pilot gave for turning feet to
   millibars of Hg, was obviously flawed. David.Smith's quotations
   from the CRC are obviously more correct.

2. The comments about Dave of 2001, are not exactly relevent. I am
   assuming a pressure helmet with some sort of seal that will work.
   (BTW, I just saw this film last night again, and the scene is
   pretty believable, I was just not sure how he positioned the pod
   so well with no rear window).

The two major arguments against pressureless suits at this moment seem
to be: (1) without pressured suits, exhaling becomes too hard (2) Blood
starts boiling when the body is is exposed to vacuum.

Counter-arguments to (1)

(1) is a good argument, But humans are pretty good about building up
lung power for exhaling. Just look at Tuba players, people who can
do artificial respiration for hours, or those incredible bagpipe players.
I wonder if one could not train ones lungs to produce enough counter
pressure against 3.7 psi. If not, why not an elastic band around the
chest. This way, the 3.7 psi air forced into the lung will do work
which is stored in the band, which can then help the person exhale.

(2) Do you really think that if I put my hand in a vacuum bottle, my
blood will start to boil? Forget the misleading stuff about persperation,
and concetrate. Why is it that blood boils at lower pressures? Just
as David.Smith says: "it is a liquid immersed in a lower pressure
ambient environment". This can only be accomplished by the artery
and vein walls expanding. Will this really happen if a the body
is exposed to a mere 16psi differential? The balloonist falling from
102,000 probably had a severely swollen hand due to frostbite (but
I could be wrong).

I would not be surprized if pressureless suits are not realistic,
but I still think that the evidence has not yet been presented here
to shoot it down.

					- Steven Gutfreund

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

Date: 22 Nov 82 16:11:07-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Arrives at KSC on Time After All
Article-I.D.: alice.1188
Via:  Usenet; 23 Nov 82 0:16-PST

The Columbia arrived at KSC today on time after all.  The
storm front that NASA said would delay the arrival by a
day had dissipated by morning, and NASA decided to go ahead
and try to fly the remaining 3 hours to Canaveral.

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

Date: 22 Nov 82 17:35:45-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: You could look it up
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.217
Via:  Usenet; 23 Nov 82 2:02-PST

The 1973 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica contains the following
paragraphs in the article "Space Exploration", under the heading
"The Vacuum of Space":

Exposed to such a vacuum environment, the unprotected human being
would have less than 15 sec. of consciousness because of the swift
onset of acute hypoxia, and immediate, catastrophic decompression
symptoms including bends, chokes, palsies, and ebullism. The last
term is defined as the profuse evaporation or "boiling" of body fluids.

To protect the astronaut against the vacuum of space, typical U.S.
spacecraft are designed to contain a normal operating pressure of
5 psia (pounds per square inch, absolute) of 100% oxygen, and a
minimum emergency pressure of 3.5 psia.

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

Some comments on other net.space submissions:

Venting your lungs would surely "freeze dry" them rapidly.

Your heart maintains a pressure DIFFERENCE between the venous and
arterial systems. It cannot pressurize the whole circulatory system.

Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Date: 23 November 1982 05:21-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Oxygen use at low pressures
To: harpo!npoiv!eisx!pyuxbb!jb at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Thanks for the fine info. That sounds like a good manual.
One more question, does it say how long at zero pressure the human
body can remain before boiling of body fluids causes damage to the
body? (Like is it just a half second from vacuum to death, or could
somebody "hold their breath" for 5 seconds while turning the pressure
back on after an accidental depressurization?)

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

Date: 23 November 1982 05:32-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle Software
To: gutfreund.umass-coins at UDEL-RELAY
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think that's a great idea! I wonder if they also paid IBM for
finding bugs in Rockwell's software?

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

Date: 23 November 1982 05:38-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: NASA as a Pollyanna
To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: 21 Nov 82 15:57:36-PST (Sun)
    From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
		  Remember, in 1962 Gus Grissom lost his capsule on reentry,
    and NASA still called the mission - with all data lost - a "total success".
Sigh, I must have missed that particular hype. Yeah, that one sure
beats the STS hype.

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

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

24-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #54
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 54

Today's Topics:
		   deputy Ames director not impressive
		     notes on spacecraft atmospheres
			     space non-suits
			Nonairtight Pressure suits
			 Keeping SPACE just that!
				 HR4286 
			 Spacecraft Environments
			      Re: JPL photos
			 Challenger Moved to VAB
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 November 1982 08:52-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: deputy Ames director not impressive
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: POURNE at MIT-MC

In Monday's edtion of the Peninsula Times-Tribune, staff writer Dave
Farrell interviewed Angelo Guastaferro, deputy director of Ames
Research Center in Mountain View. His answer to the question about
permanently inhabited space station was depressing, while his answer
to the question about why spend money in space showed he didn't
understand (or think important) many of the reasons I think
development of space is important. Here are those two verbatim, with
my comments after each:

Q. Are we moving toward a permanently inhabited space station?

A. I don't think it'll happen in my lifetime. I'm 50, so I'm saying by
the time I'm 75, we might see an extension of some sort of space
platform or space station where useful things are taking place. They
will be man-visited and man-occupied for short periods of time. But I
don't consider that a permanent presence in space. I think we'll start
building toward that.

[Comment by REM: Gee, 25 years from now we still won't have a
permanent space station, not to mention an L-5 colony? That would be
tragic if he's right.]

Q. A fundamental question is, "Why spend so much money on space
projects when there are so many things that need to be done on Earth?"
How do you answer that one?

A. First, the space program is important to people from a national
prestige standpoint. They wouldn't want to live in a country like the
United States without believing they are the best and that they are
the intellectual leader.
   It isn't by accident that every shuttle and every U.S. spacecraft
and every U.S. astronaut carries an American flag. It is symboic. One
of the first things done on the moon was not to put up a NASA sign. It
was to put up a U.S. flag.
   Second, (the missions) help you understand yourself. Going to Venus
and being able to measure it is like an experiment in terms of saying,
"It is so far from the sun. It might be spinning a different way. Why
does that planet have the sulphuric cloud? Did something happen there
that is going to happen to us?"
   You could start doing comparative planetology, not because you're
curious about Venus, but to help understand yourself. It's what we
call global habitability. We start understanding the biosphere and the
geosphere in a very inward sense.
   The third thing to consider isthe pioneering spirit of this country
-- the same thing that makes you as an individual want to climb that
mountain. I think it is part of our nature.

[Comment by REM: That second reason is a good one, but the first and
last are in the realm of Golden Fleece reasons for spending 1% of our
national budget! This NASA/AMES official left out (1) materials and
maybe even energy from space (2) innovations in manufacturing (3)
survival of our species and society via dispersial of habitat beyond
Earth (4) understanding of evolution of Universe on the large scale
(via astronomy) to understand our final destiny. Unless the interview
was grossly truncated, I think this official short-changed the space
program.]

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

Return-Path: <CLJones@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Date:  23 November 1982 09:20 est
From:  CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  notes on spacecraft atmospheres
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

A couple of notes on spacecraft atmospheres:

From the beginning, the Soviet manned spacecraft have used "Earth-like" air--a
mixture of nitrogen and oxygen in roughly the same proportions and delivered
at roughly the same pressure as sea level here.  For various reasons, all
American spacecraft used pure oxygen at 5 psi.  Among these reasons are the
fact that the nitrogen has to be lifted into space, and our early boosters
just didn't have that kind of excess capacity, and the fact that the plumbing
is more complicated with a two gas system (unless you just deliver compressed
air and vent it overboard, which means you have to carry even more nitrogen).

For EVA, a low pressure is necessary to allow any flexibility in your suit.  If
you lower the pressure, you must increase the oxygen content to stay near the
same partial pressure (since EVAs are strenuous, it is actually a good idea to
increase the partial pressure of oxygen).  Even the Soviets have their
cosmonauts breathe pure oxygen when outside of the ship.

Skylab was the first US craft to have a mixed gas environment, although I
believe it was 80% oxygen and 20% nitrogen at a reduced pressure (I don't
recall what it was).  It was also the first US spacecraft with an air-lock, so
that astronauts could decompress and purge the nitrogen from their blood
before EVAs.  The shuttle is the first US spacecraft with an "Earth-like"
atmosphere.

Yes, one of the problems that had to be overcome when Apollo and Soyuz docked
was the atmosphere difference.  This was accomplished by having the Soviets
fly with a reduced cabin pressure, and having the US carry a docking module
which was used as a compression/decompression chamber to allow crew members to
pass from one craft to the other.

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

Date: 23 Nov 1982 0938-PST
From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL>
Subject: space non-suits
To: space at KESTREL
cc: king at KESTREL

	I was doing a bit of thinking about the stuff that has wafted over the
net concerning suitless space suits.  First, I offer several facts.  I
apologize in advance for possible errors in memory.

	1) The pressure inside a systemic vein (the lowest pressure found in
the bloodstream) is 40 mm Hg.  This pressure is maintained by the various
elasticities of the parts of the bloodstream; NOT by the heart.  I seem to
remember that the pressure in the pulminary vein was somewhat lower, but I
don't remember any exact figure.  This would not be a problem because the
pulminary circulation is embedded in the lung, which is pressurized.  This
figure is referenced to ambient.  The boiling point of water at 37 deg C is
considerably less than 40 mm.

	2) A rule of thumb used by divers is that a sudden reduction of
pressure by a factor of two is safe.  A diver can immediately go from 10
meters to the surface, or 30 meters to ten meters.  While blood pressures are
too low for this distinction to matter, I suspect that it is blood pressure
rather than external pressure that can be halved with impunity.

	3) The skin is pretty impermiable when it wants to be.  When I swim
vigorously (in a "fresh water" pool) I invariably need a drink of water.  This
would not be the case if the skin were permiable.

	We have to account for the observation that the balloonist that
dropped from 102,000 feet had a swollen hand when he landed.  Consider the
following thought experiment: place a person in a box and put one of his arms
through a hole in the wall.  Provide the hole with gaskets so a pressure
differential can be maintained, and increase the pressure of the room from 1
atm. to 1.5 atm.  I think we would find that the victom's hand had swollen when
the experiment was finished.
	So the problem was probably the pressure DIFFERENTIAL.
	This means that we have to find out what differential is tolerable, and
how accurately any garment ("space leotard") has to fit the curves to avoid
excessive discomfort.  I claim that this research can be done on the ground, in
comparitive safety, by working in small steps with volunteers.

						Dick

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

Date: 23 Nov 1982 8:41-PST
From: dietz at usc-cse at USC-ECL
Subject: Nonairtight Pressure suits
To: space at mit-mc

As I recall, the idea behind the porous pressure suit is to support the
skin so that it can withstand the body's internal pressure.  It needn't
be airtight to do this (just around the head, for breathing).  The
porosity allows evaporative cooling; much simpler than current suits.

Didn't NASA test one of these things several years ago in a vacuum
chamber?  I seem to recall that it worked well.

Someone should ask Pournelle about this.

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

Date: 23 Nov 1982 12:56 PST
From: Fiveash at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Keeping SPACE just that!
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:  Fiveash

In light of Ted Anderson's message regarding the length and subject matter
in the Digest, I agree on the dilemma.

Can't the subject of nuclear war pros and cons be discussed through the
AntiWar^ DL?????  It seems to me the Space DL gets *stuck* on issues that
aren't clearly related to SPACE.  Maybe I have a misunderstanding of what
this DL is called as to the literal meaning of it.

Could be that I am setting myself up for a SPACE DL flame.......BUT... I
am pro SPACE and am on other DLs for other subject matter/issues.

C'mon,  can't the stuff thats nonrelavent be kept to the relavent DLs????????

Suz

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

Date: 23 Nov 1982 1355-PST
From: Robert Maas <REM at SU-AI>
Subject: HR4286 
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC  

After waiting about 3 months I finally received from McCloskey's office
a copy of [97th congress, 1st session, H.R.4286] which was proposed by
Gingrich, "To establish a national space and aeronautics policy, and for
other purposes." I haven't yet received the other bill I ordered.

HR4286 has some nice stuff but seems to have a few errors or confusing
places. On page 2, line 22, after saying the nation's space program has
suffered for its lack of an open-ended series of connected long-range
goals, it says "An appropriate first step would be the design, development,
and construction of a permanent, manned, multipurpose space operations
center in low Earth orbit." The obvious question is "first step towards what?".
It really should say "An appropriate first step towards remedying this
situation would be ...".

On page 4, line 7, it says "The continued exploration and utilization of
the solar system, including the Moon and Mars, is important ..." I think
asteroids should have been included as more important for utilization than
Mars! Maybe Mars is fascinating, but it'll be the asteroids not Mars that
we really utilize.

On page 5, line 15, it says our solar system exploration capability during
the first decade of the 21st century should provide options for "Moon bases,
manned missions to Mars, a Moon settlement, manned missions to Venus, and a
Mars settlement." First of all, I think a manned to Venus would be very
uncomfortable and result in virtually instant death for the astronauts. If
a mere orbit of Venus is proposed, that ought to be stated clearly, since
the manned mission to Mars is in the same paragraph and likely to be a landing
eventually. Furthermore, manned missions to the asteroids, possibly even
a permanently-manned mining colony ought to be included here. 

On page 12, line 20, among technological capabilies that ought to be
developed, it says "deep space booster system for manned solar system
exploration". I think it also ought to mention that this deep space booster
will be used to return raw materials, maybe even complete intact asteroids,
to near-Earth for further processing to recover minerals and delivery of
the resultant minerals and products to Earth and to near-Earth colonies.
Since bringing back materials by robot vehicles is likely to be much more
common than manned exploration missions, this use for the deep space booster
system really ought to be included.

Otherwise the bill (15 pages total) looks like a step forward.

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

Date: 23 Nov 1982 1549-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Spacecraft Environments
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: dlenahan at USC-ISIE
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

I  recall  one distinct disadvantage of 100% oxygen from about 1967 or
so.  Astronauts Grissom, Chaffe &  White  lost  their  lives  in  what
should  have  been  a  small  fire  if  not  supported  by the 100% O2
environment.

I  also  recall  that,  after the accident, someone said that the same
thing couldn't happen in zero-G.  That it would  have  just  (<just>?)
been a flash, since no convection would occur in zero-G, and hence the
fire would expend the local oxygen and quit burning.

Also, had a similar accident occurred under a G'd environment, and had
the explosive hatch bolts been in place, there  was  some  speculation
that  the crew might have escaped.  (Not during certain flight phases,
obviously.)

Dennis
-------

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

Date: 23 Nov 82 12:40:58-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxi!aluxz!ltn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: JPL photos
Article-I.D.: aluxz.18
In-Reply-To: Article inuxa.170
Via:  Usenet; 24 Nov 82 0:33-PST

At least as of a year and a half ago, JPL photos were for sale through the
Caltech bookstore.  Their address is:

                      Bookstore
                      Caltech
                      1201 E. California Blvd.
                      Pasadena, CA  91125

They generally have packets of photos from different missions, etc.  (Also
photos from the Hale Observatories, i.e. Mt. Palomar, etc.)
I don't know how much information is included regarding image processing or
contrast enhancement; probably not much.  But the bookstore might also be able
to tell you where you can get the info.  For technical info, another source
might be:
                      JPL
                      Public Information Bureau
                      4800 Oak Grove Drive
                      Pasadena, CA  (???)


                                     Les Niles
                                     Bell Labs, Murray Hill (aluxz!ltn)

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

Date: 23 Nov 82 15:24:11-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Challenger Moved to VAB
Article-I.D.: alice.1193
Via:  Usenet; 24 Nov 82 2:32-PST

At 0458 EST today, the shuttle Challenger began to roll to
the Vehicle Assembly Buidling.  A little later, workers were
securing it there and will now begin the process of attaching
it to its external tank and two SRB's in preparations for
STS-6.

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

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

25-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #55
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Shuttle Software
		    dullness reason for media coverage
			     space non suits
			US spacecraft atmospheres
		       Low-pressure space suits :-)
			     The Apollo Fire
			   SPACE Digest V3 #53
			  pressure vs. breathing
			      Boiling Blood
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 82 23:20:30-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihldt!ll1!sb1!mb2b!uofm-cv!dave at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Shuttle Software

	Paying a competitor to find your bugs is indeed a good way to
encourage the IBM guys to write good software and to reassure yourself
that the software is fairly correct.  But it worries me a bit that the
people writing the backup software were even looking at the primary
code.

	One approach (which apparently wasn't used) to developing
fault-tolerant software is called N-version programming [Chen and
Avizienis].  N different versions of the same program are written
independently from the same specifications; during execution, all N
version are executed, the results are compared, and the majority answer
accepted.  One of the safeguards in having someone else write the
backup code is that it should be done independently, without bias.
Thus, if IBM made some subtle fault in the structure of their program,
the fault might also have been inherited by the Rockwell software.

	With their budget constraints, NASA appears to have been more
concerned with the primary software--getting that right--and hoping
that they never have to rely on the backup software.

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

Date: 22 Nov 82 12:20:07-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!nsc!katic at Ucb-C70
Subject: dullness reason for media coverage

In my opinion, NASA is making a deliberate effoer to make
the space exploration dull--with good reason.  Do you want 
to hear it over our local tv station each time an airliner
takes off from the local airport?  In the same manner, NASA
would like the exploration of space to become a commonplace
exent that is not noticed for any special reason.

katic	(....!nsc!katic)

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

Date: 23 Nov 82 17:15:45-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxt!iasia at Ucb-C70
Subject: space non suits

Excuse the ignorance but are you discussing suits for working outside.

If so how will these porous or skin tights deal with the temperature
problem. specifically dissapating heat. 

Wouldn't a person tend to get rather warm on one side and cold on the other?

Possibly a reflective suit would handle this.

Just curious.
B. Taylor IH BTL x6797

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

Date: 24 Nov 1982 0931-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: US spacecraft atmospheres
To: space at MIT-MC

	The principal reason that U.S. spacecraft used 100% O2 at 5  psi
was that this  meant the hull  could be thinner  and lighter, which  was
important because, until the  Saturn V, the  boosters available to  NASA
were MUCH smaller  than those available  to the Soviets.   They had  BIG
rockets for their BIG  and HEAVY nukes, so  the Soviets could afford  to
have the heavier hulls to hold sea-level pressure.

	More spacecraft  weight  also  cut down  upon  its  capabilities
(which matters when sending things to the Moon - less structural  weight
equals more maneuvering fuel, and/or more science).

        The shuttle was designed from the start to use an Earth-normal
atmosphere, which means that before going EVA it is necessary to purge
the nitrogen from the bloodstream to prevent the bends.  

        There is yet  another reason  for space  suits that  no one  has
mentioned - radiation.  The layers in the suit are designed to stop some
of the most prevelant types of  particles whipping around (at least  the
Apollo moon suits  were), something  important if  you are  going to  be
galavanting around outside your  ship for very long  and want to,  among
other things, have normal children (or not die of radiation poisioning).

        -Clyde

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

Date: 24 November 1982 1257-EST (Wednesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: Low-pressure space suits :-)

From the science section of the latest Newsweek:

	Both the fan in Allen's suit, which circulates oxygen for
	breathing, and the pressure regulator in Lenoir's, which
	keeps astronauts' bodies from exploding in the near-vacuum
	of space, failed on the ground, just as they had in flight.

So there you have it, from the highest authority.

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

Date: 24 Nov 1982 12:02-PST
From: dietz at usc-cse at USC-ECL
Subject: The Apollo Fire

That apollo fire occured on the ground.  They had pure O2 at one
atmosphere pressure, giving a partial pressure of O2 three times
normal.  Lots of things burn under these conditions.  Subsequent
flights used an O2 and (I think) argon mixture during launch.

 

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

Date: 23 Nov 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #53
To: SPACE at Mit-Mc
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at Mit-Mc
Via:  Su-Ai; 23 Nov 82 7:16-EST
Via:  UMASS-ECE; 24 Nov 82 1:08-EST


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:
	      Space may be for the rich after all... (JS&A)
			 Spacecraft environments
			    Low-pressure suits
			  Air Pressure in suits.
			    Piggyback Delayed
			    Pressureless Suits
		 Shuttle Arrives at KSC on Time After All
			   You could look it up
		       Oxygen use at low pressures
			     Shuttle Software
			   NASA as a Pollyanna
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 1982 0739-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: Space may be for the rich after all... (JS&A)
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]22-Nov-82 07:39:44.WMARTIN>

Received my JS&A catalog and have more info on the "shuttle
passenger" contest/lottery/whatever:

It doesn't cost anything to enter.  If you don't want to buy the
poster and certificate, you just send in your name and address to
get notified when they have more concrete information.  (If you
don't buy anything, I don't know how carefully they will preserve
this name & address, but who knows...?)  The certificate is a
thing with your name that says you have a reservation for
consideration on the first passenger flight, plus various fine
print which legally absolves them from doing anything.  The
poster is a silly-looking picture of a bunch of planets hanging in
space, all close together in a totally unrealistic and impossible
manner.  Poster and certificate are $30, $20 if you buy anything
else, too.  They look to me to be worth something less than $2.00,
actually...

OK, so what do you get if you "win"?  Reading the catalog page
and picking out the real meaning from the verbiage, it looks like
you get a chance to spend upwards of $5,000 to pay your way.
They compare it to the cost of an "around-the-world" tour (which
it is, actually, I guess...).  This factor was not mentioned to
me by the person on the phone when I asked them about it, nor was
it in the news items I heard or read.

All in all, it sounds much like a scheme to sell overpriced
posters...

Disillusionedly,

Will Martin

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

Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-IUS received by CMU-10A at 22-Nov-82 13:43:41-EST
Date: 22 Nov 1982 13:26:38-EST
From: Wilson.Harvey at CMU-CS-IUS at CMU-CS-A
To: space@mit-mc@cmua
Subject: Spacecraft environments

I remember a few years back, when the Apollo-Soyuz mission was about to take
place, that one of the big problems with linking the two spacecraft was the
Soviets used a different environment in their cabins.  Namely, I thought
that their cabin environment was close to 'normal' earth environment i.e. a
mixture of Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, and Oxygen.  I don't remember what the
pressures were.  I was just wondering why we use an environment of ~100%
Oxygen and the Soviets used a different one.  What are the benefits, if any,
of the one over the other.  (I do remember that the Soviets could perform
welding experiments in space where we could not).  Can anyone else confirm
this, or am I totally out of the ballpark?

					Thanks,
					    Wilson

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

Date: 22 November 1982 1413-EST (Monday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30)
To: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins at UDel-Relay>
Subject: Low-pressure suits

I see that my statement about boiling blood has been defended better than
I could have myself.  But let me point out that boiling has to do with the
fluid's vapor pressure matching the ambient gas pressure.  You can boil
water either by raising its vapor pressure (by heating it),
or by reducing the required vapor pressure (by lowering the ambient gas
pressure).

Back in the early '60s, National Geographic ran an article called
"The Long, Lonely Leap."  It was about a fellow named Kittinger who
tested a new high-altitude parachute system by jumping from a balloon
at 102,000 ft.  As he jumped, or just before, one of his gloves lost
pressure.  He landed with a hand painfully swollen to the point of
unusability.  I think it took something like four hours for his hand 
to recover.

Here are some standard atmospheric pressures taken from the Handbook of 
Chemistry and Physics.  (Sea level pressure is > 1000 millibar because 
the assumed sea level temperature is the pilot's 59F standard.)

   Altitude	    Pressure
Meters	 Feet	millibars   psi
-------------------------------
    0	    0	1013.25	  14.84
11000	36089	 226.32    3.315
20000	65617	  54.748    .802
32000  104987	   8.678    .127
47000  154200      1.204    .0176
75000  246062       .0245  3.59e-4

This shows that the 60000 or 63000 foot level provides considerably less
pressure than is in the astronauts' suits, even with Lenoir's down to
3.7 psi.

If we use this sea-level pressure and the 21% oxygen figure, we get an
oxygen partial-pressure of 3.1 psi.  So the astronauts are running a bit
rich.  Maybe they could use 3.1 psi of O2, plus another pound of N2, if
they want the suits over 4 psi.  On the other hand, maybe they need the
oxygen.  During Gemini, astronauts tended to fog up their face plates
while trying to do real work.

		David Smith

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

Date: 22 Nov 1982 1803-EST
From: Tony <Li at RUTGERS>
Subject: Air Pressure in suits.

The air pressure on earth decreases roughly by one p.s.i. per
thousand feet. Thus, the 4.2 p.s.i. is roughly about what you would
experience at 11,000 feet. This is certainly acceptable for work, but
you wouldn't want to do any wind sprints.  :-)

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

Date: 22 Nov 82 7:28:22-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Piggyback Delayed
Article-I.D.: alice.1186
Via:  Usenet; 22 Nov 82 18:16-PST

The Columbia completed part one of its flight back to KSC yesterday,
as its 747 landed at Kelly AFB in Texas for refueling.  But bad weather
there has forced postponement by one day of the last leg of the trip,
now set to land at KSC tomorrow.  Meanwhile, the Challenger's rollout
to the VAB is now scheduled for no earlier than 1800 EST today, due
to delays with a hydraulic line.

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

Date:     22 Nov 82 22:32-EST (Mon)
From:     Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
cc:       david.smith at Cmu-10a
Subject:  Pressureless Suits
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 23 Nov 82 0:59-EST

I'm still not sure I have gotton a definitive answer on this:

1. The linear heuristic that the pilot gave for turning feet to
   millibars of Hg, was obviously flawed. David.Smith's quotations
   from the CRC are obviously more correct.

2. The comments about Dave of 2001, are not exactly relevent. I am
   assuming a pressure helmet with some sort of seal that will work.
   (BTW, I just saw this film last night again, and the scene is
   pretty believable, I was just not sure how he positioned the pod
   so well with no rear window).

The two major arguments against pressureless suits at this moment seem
to be: (1) without pressured suits, exhaling becomes too hard (2) Blood
starts boiling when the body is is exposed to vacuum.

Counter-arguments to (1)

(1) is a good argument, But humans are pretty good about building up
lung power for exhaling. Just look at Tuba players, people who can
do artificial respiration for hours, or those incredible bagpipe players.
I wonder if one could not train ones lungs to produce enough counter
pressure against 3.7 psi. If not, why not an elastic band around the
chest. This way, the 3.7 psi air forced into the lung will do work
which is stored in the band, which can then help the person exhale.

(2) Do you really think that if I put my hand in a vacuum bottle, my
blood will start to boil? Forget the misleading stuff about persperation,
and concetrate. Why is it that blood boils at lower pressures? Just
as David.Smith says: "it is a liquid immersed in a lower pressure
ambient environment". This can only be accomplished by the artery
and vein walls expanding. Will this really happen if a the body
is exposed to a mere 16psi differential? The balloonist falling from
102,000 probably had a severely swollen hand due to frostbite (but
I could be wrong).

I would not be surprized if pressureless suits are not realistic,
but I still think that the evidence has not yet been presented here
to shoot it down.

					- Steven Gutfreund

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

Date: 22 Nov 82 16:11:07-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Arrives at KSC on Time After All
Article-I.D.: alice.1188
Via:  Usenet; 23 Nov 82 0:16-PST

The Columbia arrived at KSC today on time after all.  The
storm front that NASA said would delay the arrival by a
day had dissipated by morning, and NASA decided to go ahead
and try to fly the remaining 3 hours to Canaveral.

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

Date: 22 Nov 82 17:35:45-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: You could look it up
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.217
Via:  Usenet; 23 Nov 82 2:02-PST

The 1973 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica contains the following
paragraphs in the article "Space Exploration", under the heading
"The Vacuum of Space":

Exposed to such a vacuum environment, the unprotected human being
would have less than 15 sec. of consciousness because of the swift
onset of acute hypoxia, and immediate, catastrophic decompression
symptoms including bends, chokes, palsies, and ebullism. The last
term is defined as the profuse evaporation or "boiling" of body fluids.

To protect the astronaut against the vacuum of space, typical U.S.
spacecraft are designed to contain a normal operating pressure of
5 psia (pounds per square inch, absolute) of 100% oxygen, and a
minimum emergency pressure of 3.5 psia.

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

Some comments on other net.space submissions:

Venting your lungs would surely "freeze dry" them rapidly.

Your heart maintains a pressure DIFFERENCE between the venous and
arterial systems. It cannot pressurize the whole circulatory system.

Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Date: 23 November 1982 05:21-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Oxygen use at low pressures
To: harpo!npoiv!eisx!pyuxbb!jb at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Thanks for the fine info. That sounds like a good manual.
One more question, does it say how long at zero pressure the human
body can remain before boiling of body fluids causes damage to the
body? (Like is it just a half second from vacuum to death, or could
somebody "hold their breath" for 5 seconds while turning the pressure
back on after an accidental depressurization?)

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

Date: 23 November 1982 05:32-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle Software
To: gutfreund.umass-coins at UDEL-RELAY
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think that's a great idea! I wonder if they also paid IBM for
finding bugs in Rockwell's software?

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

Date: 23 November 1982 05:38-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: NASA as a Pollyanna
To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: 21 Nov 82 15:57:36-PST (Sun)
    From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
		  Remember, in 1962 Gus Grissom lost his capsule on reentry,
    and NASA still called the mission - with all data lost - a "total success".
Sigh, I must have missed that particular hype. Yeah, that one sure
beats the STS hype.

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

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

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

Date: 24 Nov 1982 20:54:26-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: gutfreund.umass-coins at udel-relay
Subject: pressure vs. breathing
Cc: space at mit-mc

   You \\may// have a point on the true effects of pressure on the ability
to breathe, but your analogies are way off; in particular, total pressure
in bagpipes and tubas is \not/ high (can't give you numbers, but for
comparison an organ will run 70-90 mmHg) while in artificial respiration
you're balancing your active muscles against somebody else's inactive ones.

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

Date:     23 Nov 82 09:53-EST (Tue)
From:     Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
cc:       david.smith at Cmu-10a
Subject:  Boiling Blood
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 24 Nov 82 22:47-EST

It seems to me, that in order to show that pressureless suits are infeasable
due to "hot blood" one would have to show one of two things:

a. A documented case of someone whose blood boiled or had massive blood
   temperature elevation due to being exposed to a vacuum.

b. The mechanism or statistics that show how the blood vessels expand
   when the body is exposed to a vacuum.

However, there still may be an out. There must be some sort of drug that
can constrict and stiffen the blood vessels. Afterall, alcohol is a good
dialator of blood vessels. Could not such a drug be used to decrease
the problem of lower blood pressure and consequent temperature rise?

					- Steven Gutfreund

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

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

26-Nov-82  1122	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #56
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 56

Today's Topics:
		    dullness reason for media coverage
			     space non suits
		     Diving, Low pressure Space Suits
		       Astronauts Address (request)
			       Digest Check
		       Re: Spacecraft environments
			  Low/no pressure suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 November 1982 06:41-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: dullness reason for media coverage
To: menlo70!nsc!katic at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Although I wouldn't want to hear everytime a 747 takes off from SFO,
it might be interesting to hear every time an Orion P3 takes off from
Moffet field with new interesting scientific experiments on board.
Likewise I'd like to hear how the STS-5 experiments went, especially
the metal foam!! Anybody hear even one word about it since the launch
two weeks or so ago?

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

Date: 25 November 1982 06:46-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: space non suits
To: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxt!iasia at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

It seems to me blood circulation adequately handles temperature
differences such as standing in a snowfield with the warm sun on your
back. Reptiles do it better, sitting flat on a cold rock with their
back (upperside) to the Sun, getting warmed all the way thru in
preparation for vigorous activity. Space would have less convection
from the cold (dark) side so I don't think the problem would be too
bad (can an expert confirm my opinion?).

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

Date: 24 Nov 82 10:21:39-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Diving, Low pressure Space Suits
Article-I.D.: inuxc.528
Via:  Usenet; 25 Nov 82 5:31-PST

RE: Article by Richard King

	" A rule of thumb used by divers is that a sudden reduction
of pressure by a factor of two is safe."

	While perhaps that statement is considered true for gas 
coming out of your blood stream as is the case for the bends it
is not at all true in terms of being "safe".  All scuba divers
are taught to ascend no faster than their bubbles and to breath
normally. The greatest danger is not from the bends but from
not letting your lungs ( which have been pressurized to compensate
for the hydrostatic pressure) purge the two or more times the amount 
of air they can safely hold at the surface. If this is not done
the lungs can rupture forcing large gas bubbles into the blood 
stream which have a nasty way of stopping the flow of blood to
the brain.

	This problem is the greatest danger to untrained
people trying to dive. Something happens to their air flow, 
they panic and try to reach the surface HOLDING THEIR BREATH.
The results are usually fatal or worse.

	I don't know how this affects some of the other arguments
flying around the net about low pressure space suits, I just 
didn't want people getting the wrong idea and try to scuba dive
in their pools because it is "less than 10 m" and therefore safe. 
With out proper training  IT IS NOT SAFE EVEN IN 6 FEET OF WATER.	

	HAPPY THANKSGIVING ALL

			Fred - BTL INDY

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

Date: 24 Nov 82 15:12:19-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!rael at Ucb-C70
Subject: Astronauts Address (request)
Article-I.D.: inuxc.529
Via:  Usenet; 25 Nov 82 5:50-PST

   Does anybody know if there is an address where personal letters to the
Columbia's astronauts can be mailed?
   If so, could somebody post it or mail it to me?

						Thanks,
						Dan Vanevic
						BTL Indianapolis
						inuxc!rael

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

Date: 22 Nov 82 9:38:17-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: Onyx.harymudd at Ucb-C70
Subject: Digest Check
Article-I.D.: ucbonyx.327
Via:  Usenet; 25 Nov 82 6:46-PST

Could the Digest administrator please check if I am still on the Space Digest
Mailing List.  I haven't seen it since November 9 and before that time I have
been recieving it intermittingly (whatever).  Thanks.
(Have to post this.  Mail keeps rejecting me...)

					The One And Only,

					Philip L. Wing
					U.C. at Berkeley
					"Indiana Jones"

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

Date: 24 Nov 82 14:34:30-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Spacecraft environments
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2635
Via:  Usenet; 25 Nov 82 7:49-PST

American spacecraft have historically used pure oxygen as their internal
atmosphere for three reasons:

	1. You can get by with less pressure (since it's the partial
	pressure of oxygen that is the main consideration for breathing)
	and hence lighter cabin walls.

	2. It is much easier to monitor the partial pressure of oxygen
	if you don't have large amounts of other gases.  Monitoring is
	obviously necessary, and it is difficult to build a box that
	responds only to the oxygen pressure.  Total pressure is easy
	to measure.  I believe this problem has gotten easier in recent
	years with better sensor technology.

	3. EVA suits must use the lowest pressure possible to keep the
	joints as flexible as possible -- the suits are pretty stiff
	even so -- and going from cabin atmosphere to suit atmosphere
	is simplest if they are as similar as possible.  Even in the
	early American shots, the cabin pressure was somewhat higher
	than suit pressure, but pressure changes are much easier in
	a pure-oxygen atmosphere.  No worries about the bends.

My impression is that #1 was never a big thing and #2 was serious in the
beginning but is not too much trouble now.  #3 is still a nuisance:
I believe that a shuttle EVA starts with an in-cabin preparation period 
during which the astronaut is breathing pure oxygen through a mask to get
the damned nitrogen out of his body.

Fire is not a serious risk to spacecraft in operation.  Although I
believe the nitrogen in normal air is considered to have some damping
effect on fires, a similar partial pressure of oxygen means a similar
degree of fire hazard.  In addition, it is very difficult for a fire
to keep going in free-fall, since there are no convection currents to
keep a steady stream of air going into it.  The Apollo fire would not
have been serious in space.  Problem is, on the ground the pressure
inside a spacecraft must not be greatly lower than atmospheric, since
the walls are not built to stand outside pressure.  Before the Apollo
fire, this meant that the Apollos carried 16 psi of pure oxygen when
on the pad, and that *is* a major fire hazard.  I believe this was
changed to normal air, with a transition to low-pressure pure oxygen
during climb.

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

Date:  25 November 1982 21:00 est
From:  Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Low/no pressure suits
To:  space at MIT-MC

When in the Air Force I received an extensive set of briefings on Gemini
(I was part of a group being recruited to be MOL controllers).  I
distinctly remember one film which purported to show a spacewalking
astronaut temporarily without a glove.  I was amazed, being full of the
50's SF doctrine that this sort of thing made you go blooie.  Anybody
have more info on this incident?

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

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

27-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #57
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 57

Today's Topics:
   "A penny for your thoughts", or "NASA puts money where our mouth is"
			Re: Low/No Pressure Suits
		       A question concerning Sirius
		     Challenger Mated to ET and SRB's
		   Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     26 Nov 82 05:36-EST (Fri)
From:     Andrew Cromarty <cromarty.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
cc:       cromarty.umass-coins at UDel-Relay
Subject:  "A penny for your thoughts", or "NASA puts money where our mouth is"
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 26 Nov 82 6:03-EST

  The following short note appeared in the 26-Nov-82 issue of Science
magazine (Volume 218, No. 4575, pp.870-871, (C) AAAS, 1982).  It may
be of considerable interest to many readers of this digest.

[Begin quotation]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

		NASA Looks for Thomas Edisons

  As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) tries
to build a case for a permanent, manned space station, agency
officials are anxious to protect themselves from a criticism often
leveled at the space shuttle: that the hardware was designed and
built before the agency really got around to consulting the shuttle
users.

  So this time NASA has commissioned the eight largest aerospace
firms to identify user needs and architectural options for the space
station; the agency's own science and applications offices are
drawing up lists of what they could do on a station; and all of
NASA's outside advisory committees have been asked to give advice.
The traditional constituencies have been engaged.  Now, who has been
left out?

  "The Thomas Edisons", says Stephen Holt, a member of NASA's space
station task force.  "The people with bright ideas, who follow the
space program closely, but who are not in the traditional
constituencies."  Most of the people in the space establishment have
been around a long time, he says.  They talk to each other
constantly, and their ideas tend to equilibrate.  So there has been
some concern among the NASA advisors themselves that a few truly
innovative ideas for a space station are being missed.

  With this in mind, the task force has gotten about $200,000 to go
out and find these hypothetical Edisons.  "The idea is to award
modest grants to about 16 people," says Holt.  "We want a three-page
proposal on an idea appropriate to the scientific or technical
utilization of a space station, a curriculum vitae -- we're looking
for people with technical capability, so that will exclude high
school students -- and a plan to develop the idea within 6 months."

  "It's not clear yet what we are after," he adds, "except perhaps
fresh people who don't yet know what can't be done."  -M. Mitchell
Waldrop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[End quotation]

That's all the information I have on the grants.  Incidentally, on
the same page there's another article which discusses the current
administration's change of heart (if one can call it that) in the
direction of increased funding of civilian aeronautics, motivated
largely by the recognition that aeronautics has military applications
(surprise) and the perception of a sort of, well, aeronautics gap
(shades of Dr.  Strangelove) -- at least compared to "Europe and
Japan, where governments directly underwrite a great deal of R & D."
The article closes by noting that the Administration has urged NASA
and DoD to work jointly to keep under wraps any information
potentially worth classifying, while simultaneously importing as much
of the unclassified technology literature from other countries as
they can.

		cheers,					asc

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

Date: 26 Nov 1982 2041-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Re: Low/No Pressure Suits
To: space at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

One  bit  of  information  in  support of the lost glove on the Gemini
flight (Boebert's msg):  one of the "gee whiz" pieces  of  information
briefed  in  the  [then] Space Defense Center in Cheyenne Mountain, to
the evening public tour groups, was that the  Center  was  responsible
for tracking all manmade objects in space, "including a dropped camera
and an astronaut's glove."

This would seem to imply that the glove was lost on a spacewalk.  It'd
be hard to lose one of those things out an open window!

Dennis
-------

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

Date: 26 Nov 82 0:51:42-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: A question concerning Sirius
Article-I.D.: watmath.3939
Via:  Usenet; 26 Nov 82 23:01-PST

	I have been pondering a rather Sirius matter of late (not my pun,
Larry Niven's), and I thought I'd post it to the net.  Now, according to
what I know of the theory of stellar formation, all constituents of a
stellar system form at roughly the same time (cosmically speaking).  In
fact, if any constituents of the system form  earlier than others, then
the larger ones form first.
	Now, the Sirius system consists of two stars: a hot, bright, young
blue star (Sirius-A) and a white dwarf companion (Sirius-B).  The white
dwarf is a burned-out corpse of a G or K class star.  The problem is that
the smaller companion should have had a longer lifetime than Sirius-A, since
hot blue-white stars burn their fuel much faster than cooler yellow or red
ones.  Therefore, if the two stars formed at the same time (which they should
have), Sirius-A should have become a black hole or a neutron star long before
Sirius-B left the main sequence.  And yet it didn't.
	I can see three possibilities: first, that stellar systems don't
congeal at roughly the same time; or, second, that one of the two stars is
a capture.  The third possiblity, which I discount, is that the white dwarf
burned faster.  In any case, *I* don't know the answer.  Do any of you?
					Rick McGeer.
					decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer (USENET)

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

Date: 26 Nov 82 19:58:00-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Challenger Mated to ET and SRB's
Article-I.D.: alice.1198
Via:  Usenet; 27 Nov 82 0:31-PST

The Challenger was mated to its external tank and solid rocket
boosters Wednesday morning in preparations for STS-6.  The
operation was delayed about 8 hours when a bolt snapped and
a replacement had to be installed.  Later this week, technicians
will check gas, electrical, and fluid connections to and from the
ship.

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

Date: 26 Nov 82 19:59:53-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia
Article-I.D.: alice.1199
Via:  Usenet; 27 Nov 82 1:46-PST

Radar imaging taken during STS-5 has revealed a vast ancient river
system in the now Egyptian Desert.  The area, which used to be
a rich grassland, is now a vast dry desert.  The radar pictures,
able to probe 15 feet down into the dry surface, showed the
riverbeds of what used to be a river system as great as the Nile.

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

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

28-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #58
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 58

Today's Topics:
			  Shuttle coverage on TV
			    Re: Boiling Blood
			     Dr. Strangeglove
		    Re:  Gingerich's space policy bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sender: wegeng.wbst @ PARC-MAXC
Date: 27-Nov-82 14:02:39 EST
Subject: Shuttle coverage on TV
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: Wegeng.wbst at Parc-Maxc


I have mixed feelings about the lack of good, consistant coverage of
the Shuttle's latest flight.  As has been stated previously, the
idea of spaceflight becoming "routine", and therefore not newsworthy
seems to be desirable.  As the general public becomes used to the idea
of regular shuttle flights I believe that they will come to accept it
more, and therefore less inclined to consider it to be a waste of money.
We take for granted the benefits of space research, even though we don't
always realize the source of those benefits.  The public doesn't care
where something came from if it works and helps.
Now what we need is for the public to take for granted the source of
those benefits, and the lack of good TV coverage seems to indicate 
that this is coming.

On the other hand, I too would like to be able to learn of the 
results of shuttle experiments.  Perhaps what is required is just more
effort on the part of those interested to find the information.  I have 
interests in other fields which do not get
publicity, so to get information on those fields I subscribe to magazines,
etc. which cover them.  Not as fast as a TV report, but usually more detailed
(and less biased).

==dw

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

Date: 27 November 1982 1931-EST (Saturday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30)
To: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins at UDel-Relay>
Subject: Re: Boiling Blood
CC: space at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Steven Gutfreund's message of 23 Nov 82 09:53-EST
Message-Id: <27Nov82 193149 DS30@CMU-CS-A>

You want

	A documented case of someone whose blood boiled or had massive
	blood temperature elevation due to being exposed to a vacuum.

I can't give you anything of the sort.  All I can point to is the excerpt
from the pilot's manual that someone posted recently.  (Sorry, I forgot
the name.)  But what's this about blood temperature elevation?  Nobody
ever said that vacuum raised the blood temperature.  Boiling is caused by
reduced gas pressure.

I see two dimensions by which space suits can be classified:  by
pressurization, and by thermal control.  Three types of pressurization
are gas pressure (full-pressure), elastic garment pressure (partial pressure),
and none.  Thermal control can be active or passive.

Current space suits are gas-pressurized, with active thermal control.
Air force pilots wear partial-pressure suits, which use garment
elasticity and inflatable tubing to apply pressure to the body.
I think these suits exclude the hands, feet, and head.  Their main purposes
are to apply external pressure to the rib cage and abdomen, and to serve
as G-suits.  U-2 and SR-71 pilots wear full-pressure suits.  (The astronauts
on STS-1 through -4 wore SR-71 suits.)

I just can't see a non-pressurized suit succeeding, whether or not
blood boils.  3.1 psi inside the lungs, with 0 psi at the outside of the chest,
is a tremendous force.  I'll bet bagpipers don't generate anywhere near that.
At a minimum, you need external pressure on the thorax and abdomen.
I believe that pressure (gas or elastic garment) must be applied to the whole
body.  If pressure is taken off one part (say, a cell), it will see a
differential of 0.8 psi between inside and outside, as long as there is
still liquid water in it, no matter how far it has already expanded.
(I came up with 0.8 psi because that is the pressure at 65000 feet.)

If the skin is sufficiently impermeable, then a partial-pressure suit might
work.  The neck seal must hold gas pressure on the head end, but it would
not subject the wearer to a sudden change of skin pressure (unless that is what
it takes to get the gas seal).  If the skin is (sufficiently) impermeable,
then the pressure supplied by the (permeable) garment would keep the body
fluids from boiling.  The questions to answer are (1) Is the skin
sufficiently impermeable, and (2) can a practical neck seal be made?

There must be a reason that pilots who fly planes over 65000 feet are given
full-pressure (=gas-pressure) suits, as BACKUP systems.

Here are my rough & ready thoughts on thermal control.
In low earth orbit, you spend around 40 minutes at a stretch in darkness,
so you need something to keep you warm.  That may just require good
insulation, but maybe you need a heater.  (Do the present space suits
have heaters?)  On the other hand, working in space gets quite strenuous,
and you can easily overheat.  But there's that insulation stopping you
from radiating your excess heat.  Enter an active cooling system.
Note: astronauts (e.g., Cernan on Gemini 9) have overheated while working
in space, even with active cooling.

		David.Smith @ cmu-cs-a

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

Date: 27 November 1982 1940-EST (Saturday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30)
To: dlenahan at usc-isie
Subject: Dr. Strangeglove
CC: space at MIT-MC
Message-Id: <27Nov82 194013 DS30@CMU-CS-A>

	"It'd be hard to lose one of those things [a space glove] out
	of an open window!"

I think it would be a lot easier to lose one out the hatch than off the
hand of the astronaut.  With an astronaut outside, yanking on the umbilical,
while the pilot fires jets to keep the spacecraft straight, it would be
quite simple for anything to fly out the hatch that wasn't tied down.
Gemini had two very big hatches.

If anyone can document the bare hand story, I'd be very intrigued.

	David.Smith @ cmu-cs-a

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

Date: 25 Nov 1982 1315-EST
From: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: Re:  Gingerich's space policy bill
Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11874798275.53.583.3765 at DEC-MARLBORO>

I seem to be cast in the role of permanent pessimist on this list, so:

~= (flame on)

It's a good thing that Gingerich's space bill did not mention 
mining the asteroids, or he would surely become a Golden Fleece
award candidate.  Basing a space industrial policy around a
low value-added industry like mining is crazy.  All your high-tech,
hand-crafted, incredibly expensive space vehicles would have to compete
with steam shovels in Minnesota.  Iron ore in this country sells for
about a thousand dollars A TON;  it'll take a hell of a lot of tons
to make back your ~ $10^11 investment.  
     Of course, as our mineral reserves are depleted that price will rise.  
But we really don't know what's out in the asteroid belt, and we
don't have the technology to bring it back.  It's easy to scribble
down a design for a solar-powered mass-driver asteroid pusher, but
it's also easy to scribble down a design for a Saturn V.  Tens of billions
of dollars of R and D would have to go into it.  Once you do get out
there it takes several years to bring an asteroid back, and in the
meantime you're paying interest on all that capital.  Even mining
Antarctica or the deep sea floor looks attractive by comparison.
    The same objections apply to generating energy in space.  The end
product is not particularly valuable, it takes an enormous amount
of start-up capital, the technology is non-existent, and it can
already be done readily on Earth.  If it's cheap to put solar cells in
geosynchronous orbit, it would be almost free to put them on your rooftop.
The energy output per unit area is less (by about a factor of six, I think),
but it would be vastly easier to install and maintain the array, and
the electricity would be easier to distribute.  
     No, if you want to manufacture things in space, find something
that's easy to handle and of high value, like on the order of 
ten thousand dollars a kilogram (hmmm, like cocaine synthesis?).
Bulk industries like mining and energy are for very long term,
like >30 years.

 = (flame off)

John Redford
(vlsi@dec-marlboro)
   --------

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

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

29-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #59
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 59

Today's Topics:
   "A penny for your thoughts", or "NASA puts money where our mouth is"
		 Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia
		     correction to anti-mining flame
		     Re: A question concerning Sirius
			 Explosive decompression
			Recreational use of space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 November 1982 08:34-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: "A penny for your thoughts", or "NASA puts money where our mouth is"
To: cromarty.umass-coins at UDEL-RELAY
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I object to the restriction that a use for a space station must be
scientific or technical. I'd like to see it used as a setting for
movies that have real zero-gee special effects (in addition to all the
scientific and manufacturing stuff I want done there). Why are they
making that (in my opinion) arbitrary restriction on use?

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

Date: 27 Nov 82 17:58:31-PST (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia
Article-I.D.: watmath.3945
In-Reply-To: Article alice.1199
Via:  Usenet; 28 Nov 82 5:32-PST

	Now, there is an argument for Proxmire.  I can hear it now:  Columbia
discovered dry river beds under the desert, which promptly were used by the
Egyptian government for an irrigation system, which in turn turned the Egyptian
desert into fertile farmland, which in turn made Egypt independent in dairy
products, which hurts the farmers of Wisconsin (those god-like creatures...)
	Seriously, this discovery may be the most important made by STS-V.  If
the Egyptians really do use the riverbed for irrigation, I wonder how many
will credit Columbia and the space program for the discovery?  Damned few,
I'll bet.
						Rick.

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

Date: 28 Nov 1982 1231-EST
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: correction to anti-mining flame
Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11875576837.18.583.5032 at DEC-MARLBORO>

Correction to my flame about asteroid mining: the US steel industry
produces about a hundred million tons of steel of year and earns
about a hundred billion dollars.  Therefore, the stuff that rolls
out of the mill costs a thousand dollars a ton, not the iron ore itself
as I previously said.  The ore probably goes for a couple of hundred
dollars a ton.

/jlr
   --------

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

Date: 28 Nov 82 17:23:18-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxi!aluxz!ltn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius
Article-I.D.: aluxz.20
In-Reply-To: Article watmath.3939
Via:  Usenet; 28 Nov 82 20:01-PST

Question:
    Did Sirius A, now a young, hot, blue star, and its companion, Sirius B, a
white dwarf and presumably the dead hulk of a G or K star (which should have a
much longer life than its hotter companion) form at the same time, or if not, 
how did the system form?
 
Answer:
     The two stars did form at the same time, in the same place.  Originally,
Sirius B burned much hotter and brighter than its companion.  Millions of years
ago, the Sirius system appeared much brighter from Earth than it does today.
Sirius B quickly used up its hydrogen (and then its helium, too) and 'died.'
I'm not sure, it may have gone nova and lost some material that way, too.
But it was not massive enough to collapse into a black hole or neutron star,
and did not go supernova.  A star doees *not* have to be a G or K type (yellow
dwarfs, like our Sun) to end up as a white dwarf.  Only the most massive stars
will end up as black holes or neutron stars.

                                         Les Niles
                                         Bell Labs, Murray Hill (aluxz!ltn)

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

Date: 29 November 1982 00:28-EST
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL at MIT-MC>
Subject: Explosive decompression
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-MC
cc: KFL at MIT-MC

  I think the recent discussion about whether astronauts can survive
in zero pressure misses the point.  The human body is a lot tougher
than most people seem to think.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone
goes streaking on the Moon someday.
  But if we are in space to stay, spacesuits must be not merely
survivable, but reasonably comfortable as well.  We should be talking
about what the ideal spacesuit environment is, not about what is the
minimum survivable.
							...Keith

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

Date:     28 Nov 82 21:58-EST (Sun)
From:     Andrew Cromarty <cromarty.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       rem at Mit-Mc
cc:       space at Mit-Mc, cromarty.umass-coins at UDel-Relay
Subject:  Recreational use of space
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 29 Nov 82 4:33-EST

	"I object to the restriction that a use for a space station
	must be scientific or technical. I'd like to see it used as a
	setting for movies that have real zero-gee special effects
	(in addition to all the scientific and manufacturing stuff I
	want done there). Why are they making that (in my opinion)
	arbitrary restriction on use?"	-- REM at MIT-MC

I hardly disagree with you.  But it is fair to say that the purpose
of NASA's making these funds available is their explicit recognition
of their narrowness in thinking creatively about space and how we
might explore and use it, so even they agree with you in principle,
if not as to the specifics of your proposal.

Beyond that, it scarcely needs pointing out that artistic activities
are given short shrift in government funding in general; space
funding is a microcosm of federal money management in general, right
down to the revival of the program because of its military potential.
This is in turn a reflection of the role of science and technology in
our culture and perhaps especially its obvious utility to centralized
governments such as that ruling the United States.

Perhaps you should submit a proposal and see if you can convince them
to change their mind!  Even if you don't succeed in getting the flicks
made, at least they will have been exposed to the idea that there's
more to space than laser bases and telescopes.  And NASA needs to have
that said to them, even if they can't understand it yet.

							asc

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

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

30-Nov-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #60
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 60

Today's Topics:
		       SIR (Shuttle Imaging Radar)
		 Re: Astronauts Address (request) - (nf)
			  Fire Hazards in Space
			     Egyptian rivers
	     Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf)
			  Zero psi and Skinsuits
			Recreational use of space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 82 0:51:50-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: SIR (Shuttle Imaging Radar)
Article-I.D.: eagle.655
Via:  Usenet; 29 Nov 82 3:31-PST

I believe it was the second flight of Columbia which carried the Shuttle
Imaging Radar experiment that discovered the hidden Sahara rivers. 
The current issue of Scientific American has an excellent article on
the results of this experiment, as well as a similar radar flown on
Seasat several years ago.

Part of the delay in getting results from these experiments was probably
the enormous amount of computing required to process the raw radar data.
According to the SciAm article, a Cray-1 can work in about 1/10 real time
(ie., it would take 10 seconds on a Cray-1 to process one second of
data.)

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

Date: 28 Nov 82 22:25:44-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!zeppo!whuxk!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!coletti at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Astronauts Address (request) - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1139
Via:  Usenet; 29 Nov 82 6:01-PST

#R:inuxc:-52900:uiucdcs:8500004:000:642
uiucdcs!coletti    Nov 28 21:20:00 1982

   Back in the 60's there was a Scientist/Astronaut named Brian O'Leary
who wrote a book called "The making of an ex-astronuat" (he never
went up).  The book has some very interesting observations, but that's
another story...  Anyway, he once received a card from London, England
in just 3 days with the address:

			B O'LEARY
			ASTRONAUT
			U.S.A.

It appears that not too much precision is required...

   On the more practical side, their offices have always been at the
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas.  Another possibility is:

	<name>, Astronaut
	NASA
	John F. Kennedy Space Center
	Kennedy Space Center, Florida  32899

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

Date: 29 Nov 1982 09:55 PST
From: DMRussell at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Fire Hazards in Space
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
cc: DMRussell.PA@PARC-MAXC, decvax!utzoo!henry@Ucb-C70


	From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70
	Subject: Re: Spacecraft environments
	Article-I.D.: utzoo.2635

	Fire is not a serious risk to spacecraft in operation. .....  
	In addition, it is very difficult for a fire
	to keep going in free-fall, since there are no convection 
	currents to keep a steady stream of air going into it....


I wouldn't have thought that this would be a problem!  Sure, there wouldn't
be any convection currents, but there is a steady flow of gas thoughout the
spacecraft.  I believe that they install fans to move the air around and thereby
avoid sleeping astronauts dying from anoxia.  (Without the fans, exhaled breath
would tend to sit in a O2 defficient pool around a sleepers face in zero-g.) 
Thus, a flame might be able to exist in the shuttle because the fans would 
supply it with enough O2.  

The air circulation system had an interesting side effect in Skylab.  Since the
net flow of air was in one direction (i.e. toward the intakes), 
anything that was dropped or lost would end up on the fan's covers.  
So, whenever Joe astronaut lost something, all he had to do was to 
wait for a while, and it would eventually turn up on the 
intake gratings. 

-- Dan Russell --    

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

Date: 29 Nov 1982 9:52-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
Subject: Egyptian rivers
To: space@mit-mc
Origin: usc-cse
Via:  Usc-Cse; 29 Nov 82 10:31:24

Two corrections.  First, it was STS-2 (not 5) that discovered the
rivers, using the SIR-A synthetic aperture radar.  Second, the rivers
could hardly be used to irrigate crops, as they haven't carried any
water for thousands of years.  They are buried under meters of sand.
The sand was very dry, so the microwaves from SIR-A could penetrate it
down to the bedrock, uncovering the riverbeds.

 

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

Date: 29 Nov 82 12:00:48-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!everett (Everett Kaser) at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf)
Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.497
Via:  Usenet; 29 Nov 82 14:54-PST

#R:alice:-119900:hp-pcd:3400001:000:589
hp-pcd!everett    Nov 29 09:45:00 1982


From: Everett Kaser
      hplabs!hp-pcd

This is in response to the first response.
You seem to have missed something. The discovery was of *dry* river beds.
It's hard to irrigate from *dry* river beds. (i.e. there used to be water
there, but no more; that's why it's desert now.) Other than what this
discovery can tell us about the climate in ages gone by, the other really
exciting possibility is that they may be able to discover ancient settlements
(circa 10,000 years old) preserved beneath the sands. Supposedly, excellent
possible cites for such have been spotted from the data.

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

Date:     29 Nov 82 13:19-EST (Mon)
From:     Charles Weems <weems.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
cc:       david.smith at Cmu-10a
Subject:  Zero psi and Skinsuits
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 29 Nov 82 19:40-EST

This latest sequence of notes seems to have split into the questions of
"What would really happen to an unprotected human in a sudden 
depressurization?" and "Why do spacesuits need to be so bulky?". 
I thought I'd throw in my two cents worth on each of these subjects.  

    First, what would happen in a depressurization?  Someone asked if any
experiments had been done.  The answer is, unfortunately yes.  According one
of my biologist friends, some German scientists conducted a series of low
pressure experiments on prisoners from the concentration camps during WW2.
These were slow depressurizations.  The results weren't pleasant.
    Let's assume that you're in a spacecraft, breathing pure oxygen at about
6psi.  (The effects are only worse if the pressure is higher or the gas mix
isn't pure O2.)  Lets also assume that the loss of pressure isn't instan-
taneous but is still fairly rapid -- say it takes 15 seconds to reach zero.
Then start timing.  One thing that will happen is that the gas trapped
in the lungs will try to expand.  If you hold your breath (which isn't hard,
we can easily lock up quite a bit more lung pressure than is good for us),
the pressure will force your diaphragm down, displacing your viscera.
(remember, your diaphragm is used to expanding your lungs).  At some point
the lungs would rupture, causing severe internal bleeding.  This could be
compensated for by some sort of corset or other pressure garment around the
torso. (But we're assuming you're just wearing you're overalls.)  The other
alternative is to release the gas pressure from the lungs as quickly as
possible, but in a controlled manner.  If you didn't panic and had practiced
doing this, it wouldn't be too hard (your lungs won't burst instantly, and
besides, we're assuming that the pressure doesn't reach zero all that
fast).  You would need to get the lung pressure down to about 2psi to
be manageable by your diaphragm.  At this point the gas mix becomes
important since a normal atmosphere mix at 4psi is about as low as you can
go without reversing the direction of oxygen transfer across the membrane
in your lungs.  With pure oxygen, 2psi should keep it going the right way.
(Although other things will start to happen, but we'll get to that in a
bit.)  It will also be important for you to widely open your mouth to
clear the pressure from your eustachian tubes and inner ear.  If you have
a slightly stuffed up head, too bad, your eardrums will burst.  Almost
immediately, your nose will start to bleed -- the vessels in your nasal
lining are very sensitive to pressure differentials.  Other thin membranes
will also start to bleed very quickly.  These include your lips and mouth
lining (since you had to open your mouth), excretory tract linings and
(in women) vaginal lining.  Perhaps most disabling will be that the insides
of your eyelids, tear ducts and even your eyeballs will start to bleed (all
those little vessels that make your eyes look bloodshot will burst very
quickly).  You will also have problems with any gas in your digestive tract.
This will expand or displace the viscera and cause severe cramps.
(Although that will probably be among the least of your worries.)  At 2psi
the linings in your lungs will start to bleed but not massively (the higher
the original pressure  the greater the bleeding will be).  
Assuming that you don't pass out from the pain, or lose control, how long
could you last?  One limiting factor is how long you could remain conscious.
Once you lose control and the pressure in your lungs escapes, they
will hemorrhage massively and there will be no chance of reviving you.
Considering various reflex reactions and the loss of blood to the brain due
to embolisms, 15 seconds is a reasonable estimate.  You would probably be
severely impeded in any effort to restore the pressure after the first 10
seconds.  Assuming you spend the first 5 seconds reacting and venting your
lungs and eustachian tubes, that doesn't leave much time to act.
    Just for argument's sake, lets say that you were wearing a protective
face mask and a corset, and that your exposed mucous membranes were
also protected.  How well would your skin act as a space suit?  Not very
well.  The skin is less than one percent as permeable as the lining in
your lungs, but that's still fairly permeable.  Someone pointed out that
when they go swimming, they come out thirsty because they don't absorb
water.  All this implies is that the skin is relatively impermeable to
water (good thing too, or you'd drip all over an awful lot).  Actually
it's not even all that impermeable to water.  For one thing it's covered
with pores through which you sweat.  It's also that permeability that makes
your skin shrivel up when you keep it in water for a long time.  It is very
permeable to quite a number of things including a variety of carcinogenic
solvents and most gases (your skin actually breathes to a small extent --
this helps make up for the fact that blood vessels don't run right at the
surface).  The real problem, however is that your skin is very elastic.  Due
to the large internal fluid pressures it would ballon up almost instantly.
This is how the decrease in pressure is transferred through the skin at first.
The pressure decrease results in the fluid pressure within the capillaries
bursting them.  This is further aided by bubbles of gas forming (disolved
gasses in the fluids come out of solution) which block flow in the
capillaries, thus causing local pressure increases which burst more 
capillaries.  Thus soon after depressurization the small vessels near the
skin's surface would begin to rupture due to the formation and expansion of
bubbles of gases dissolved in the blood.  (It should be noted here that this
mechanism is the same one at work in the membrane bleeding discussed above.
The vessels are simply much closer to the surface and more numerous in these
areas.  This is really what people mean when they refer to the boiling of
body fluids in a vacuum.  Although the fluids themselves will evaporate too,
the process will not be quite as rapid due to surface effects.  Note that it
doesn't matter that the vessel walls can hold the fluid pressures under
normal external pressure.  For one thing that external pressure is a real
help to them.  They will expand when that pressure is removed.  For another
the vessel walls are also permeable to the disolved gases.)  The vessel
rupturing would proceed at a much slower rate than in the lungs, however it
would still be very quick.  In addition, there will be some genuine 'boiling'
of body fluids, although it might be better to call this rapid evaporation.
The combination of this with the sudden reduction in pressure in tissue near
the surface will lead to rapid and intense cooling.  At some point fairly
early on, some of that tissue will actually freeze.  This will block flow in
the deeper vessels and cause some rupturing there.  Even the frozen fluids
would continue to evaporate through sublimation.  To an observer, you would
first appear to ballon up like a Macy's Parade baloon character, then a cloud
of 'steam' would appear around you.  The length of time that you could survive
can be looked at two ways.  There is the time, after which, the damage is
too great to be repaired and death will inevitably occur though perhaps not
for some time if pressure is restored.  Then there is the time at which you
would expire if no pressure restoration occured.  The maximum time for
recovery is somewhere in the range of 15 to 30 seconds. (Although with
anything over 15 seconds, the quality of the recovery might be questionable.)
The time at which death will occur is somewhere around 45 seconds.  In both
of these cases, the limiting factor has become the point at which embolisms
stop the flow of blood to the brain.  In an explosive decompression this can
happen in as little as 5 seconds.  The above figures assume that the pressure
doesn't go to zero instantaneously, but at some nonetheless rapid rate
(reaching zero in, say, about 15 seconds).  Unconsciousness would occur within
a second or two after blood flow to the brain stopped (the neurons sense and
react to this very quickly) and death would follow very soon after.  Hence,
although Dave in the 2001 scenario might have survived (the suit he had on
would have been a great help) he would not have come out of the air lock
fit and trim and ready to tear HAL apart.  Because of his missing helmet,
he would have probably lost his vision due to vessel breakage in his retina
his eardrums would have ruptured (and bled) and he would have had
a really bad nosebleed, bleeding lips and mouth (and his hair would have been
pretty messed up too).  Not a pretty sight.
    OK, lets assume you're wearing some skin tight elastic suit that covers
your body and seals cleanly with a face mask, but is permeable to gasses.
This prevents your internal pressure from ballooning your body.  Now how long?
Still not very long.  Again, the gas permeability will allow the gasses near
the surface to come out of solution.  This will transfer the pressure drop
inside fairly quickly (albeit not quite as quickly) and cause bubbles to
form in the blood which will eventually cut off the flow to the brain.  Since
the whole body is involved, these build up very rapidly.  Perhaps this would
push the times to about 30 seconds to recover and 60 seconds until death.
The cooling will also occur in this case, so a case of nearly total frostbite
might also result.  I doubt that anyone could survive such a condition even
if the pressure was restored quickly.  Note, however, that exposing a small
part of the body, sufficiently far from the brain (as the blood flows),
wouldn't necessarily be fatal.  The embolisms would tend to disperse before
they reached the brain.  The exposed area would probably be severely injured
but (if the exposure wasn't too long) might actually recover with proper
treatment.
    Now, there are several reasons why current space suits are gas pressured
and so bulky.  First of all, gas pressured suits are more comfortable.  The
circulating gasses help remove perspiration and the various waste products
in it.  (some of the components of perspiration are actually toxic)  If we
had a gas impermeable skinsuit, it would have to be permeable to perspiration
and all of its toxic components.  If it were, then evaporative cooling would
become a problem and require additional heating energy to compensate. (Except
when you were in direct sunlight, when it would still not be sufficient to
cool you.)  Another problem is that an evaporative system like this would
pollute the vacuum around the spacecraft.  This wouldn't be a permanent
condition, but it would prevent such things as infrared telescope work while
anyone was doing an EVA.  Without the evaporation, all that's needed to keep
the astronaut warm is a good layer of insulation.  In fact the current suits
don't have any heating systems -- they (like the shuttle) only need to
provide for cooling.  The astronaut provides more than enough heat when well
insulated.  Another comfort factor is that the pressured suit isn't skin
tight.  Imagine trying to work for any length of time with tight elastic
wrapped all around your body -- it just isn't going to stretch in all of
the directions you need to move in.  (If it did, it wouldn't keep you from
expanding.)  Hence you'll get fatigued fairly quickly.  The gas pressured
suit on the other hand may be a little stiff, but you can move it just about
as easily in any direction -- and it's not going to have all of that skin
friction and elastic resistance to muscle flexure and skin movement.
    Lets assume too that you could make this thing with built in insulation,
cooling and a non-stick internal surface (except in the gloves and other
places where some internal skin friction is needed).  (This kind of thing
gives materials science people nightmares, by the way.)  We still have
to remember that we'll doing work in this thing for long periods on EVA.
Thus it will be necessary to have extra wear protection in areas that rub
together (such as armpits, crotch, insides of joints, etc.).  Unfortunately
these also happen to be areas of maximum perspiration and will need more
permeability.  It would be nice too to have several layers of back-up
pressure holding material or perhaps just a fast puncture sealing property
in the skinsuit.  It would also be nice to have something that stopped
some of the radiation -- a foil of any dense material would do to stop the
low energy alpha particles.  Finally the skinsuit material would have to
be amenable to shaping or to cutting and joining in a gas tight manner
(and with no weakness at the seams).
    The current space suits accomplish all of this by using several layers
of different materials, combined with a gas pressurization and circulation
system.  Even if a miracle skinsuit fabric was developed, it's unlikely
that it would be used because it still doesn't provide air for the skin
to 'breathe'.  As mentioned above, the skin actually breathes to compensate
for the fact that blood vessels don't run right on the surface.  Although
it wouldn't kill you to have the skin sealed off for a fairly long period,
it would get rather uncomfortable on any long EVA's.
    The conclusions we can draw from all of this are:  The skin makes a
very poor spacesuit and even in the best of conditions couldn't keep you
alive for more than a minute.  The materials do not yet exist to make a
non-gas-pressurized suit that would be practical for long periods.  It would
be possible to make such a suit for short EVA's or emergency use, but it
would probably be even more difficult to put on, and too uncomfortable to
wear continuously as a safety backup.

                                       chip weems
                                       weems.umass-coins@udel-relay

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

Date:     30 Nov 82 03:06-EST (Tue)
From:     Andrew Cromarty <cromarty.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       rem at Mit-Mc
cc:       space at Mit-Mc, cromarty.umass-coins at UDel-Relay
Subject:  Recreational use of space
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 30 Nov 82 4:01-EST

	"(1) You're saying even if somebody in NASA likes my idea for
	space movies, it's "not their department" so they by law are
	required to officially ignore my suggestion?"
						--REM at MIT-MC

  No, that's not what I said, although it certainly may be true.  I
don't know to what extent NASA's use of their money is restricted,
either in this case or in general.  Rather, I suggest that they are
unlikely to fund your suggestion because the decision as to whom to
fund will be forged by people who are at best dedicated technofreaks,
and more likely professional bureaucrats, neither of whom I would
expect to be predisposed to non-technological uses of space.  Indeed,
if they already were so predisposed, then it seems unlikely that they
would have issued a statement that is so obviously a paean to Serious
Technological Uses of Space.

  But then, of course, are we less guilty than they?  The bulk of
what appears in this digest is no less of a paean to technology.  How
often do participants discuss the use of space for art?  Everyone
would seemingly prefer to hear about all the neat gadgetry on this
STS flight, or to flame about exobiology.

  I'm a technofreak too, but I couldn't survive very comfortably on
the Earth without the arts, and certainly would not need them the
less were I in space.  As much as I would personally like to be in
space, I don't delude myself that it would be so fascinating 24 hours
a day that I'd never even notice an absence of, say, music or theater
in my environment; and what do astronauts see of the arts now?  We
should expect life in space to be substantially more *boring* than on
Earth for a long time to come, if only because it's so underdevloped
-- no, *un*developed -- that there just wouldn't be much to do,
except hard work.


	(2) Perhaps I (or Pournelle) should write to somebody at
	NASA, as an eyeopener only, not for effect, and also write to
	whoever funds public TV stations to cause Ballet and Theatre
	to show on PBS, for effect? Is that the Corporation for
	Public Broadcasting, or some other agency?	-- REM

  Sure, write to the National Endowment for the Arts if they still
have any money after Reaganomics.  But again, my suggestion is not
that people write "as an eyeopener only"; rather that the only
effect we can reasonably expect initial proposals of this sort to
have is that of eyeopener.

  In fact, I'm quite concerned that the people who are establishing
space development policy (did I say "development policy"? Hah!) are
not attending to the problems of making space liveable.  I might be
willing to exclude L5'ers and the like, who are making some attempt
to plan entire habitats.  But at least on the basis of what I see
coming out of NASA, their idea of people living in space is that they
don't, and if they do it's for short periods, during which time they
perform Government-Approved Serious Technological or Scientific Work.

  If we are to successfully populate space, then it is trivially
apparent that we shall need the full range of human activities going
on there -- or at least the peacable ones -- and I'm hardpressed to
say that NASA recognizes this.  But maybe if people start saying it
at them, they'll eventually catch on.  ...Then again, maybe not.
They want space next week at NASA if they want it at all, which to
them seems to mean flashy space shots instead of more efficient jet
launches for shuttles, military funding, and perhaps a nod in the
direction of potential space industry.  (That is, some people at NASA
seem to want it so bad they can taste it, while others shake their
heads and say "maybe in the next century....", with the latter group
apparently dominating NASA at the moment.)

Sounds pretty gloomy, come to think of it.  Maybe we need private
funding of space ventures just to ensure that something actually
comes of space development.  [No Statist flames meant to be invited
by this observation.]
					asc

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

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

01-Dec-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #61
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 61

Today's Topics:
			   SPACE Digest V3 #60
				 Atlantis
		       re -> shuttle imaging radar
			:=) Shuttle Coverage on TV
			 more pressure discussion
		      Rockwell Settles out of Court
		      Mariner I and STS Journalists
			  Suits and 100% Oxygen
		      How to fund the space program
			     National strike
		  Re: blood boiling and unpressure suits
		       Space Recreation & Politics
			Suits needed - some facts
	  Evolution of the Space Suit: book review and comments
			    Little lost glove
			 The infamous Lost Glove
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 November 1982 06:46-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #60
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

By the way, if you haven't yeard yet, last Thursday the weather
satellite over the Pacific Ocean failed (the infrared sensor stopped
working so we can't observe cloud formations any more). If it had
failed a week earlier Hawaii wouldn't have known about that hurricane
in the detail we've grown used to. Currently we in California don't
have the forecasts of storms and nice pictures of them we've grown
used to in recent years.

An older satellite is being reativated (at least they're trying to
reactivate it) now to provide at least some cloud images over the Pacific.

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

Return-Path: <CLJones@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Date:  30 November 1982 09:20 est
From:  CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Atlantis
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

I don't know if this has been mentioned (delivery of the digest has been
a trifle spotty recently), but the name Atlantis was chosen as a name
for one of the shuttles because it was the name of a Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute research vessel.

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

Date: 29 Nov 82 11:40:58-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!stan at Ucb-C70
Subject: re -> shuttle imaging radar

In addition to the article in Scientific American, there are good articles
in the recent IEEE Spectrum and Proceedings of the IEEE.  I think they
were both written by the same group, so that the Proc. article fills out
the details of the Spectrum article.

Although they would like to digitally process images in real time, there
are optical "tricks" that have been used to process such images for the
past 20 years or so.

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

Date: 30 Nov 1982 1152-CST
From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: :=) Shuttle Coverage on TV
To: space at MIT-MC

For those of you familar with the paradox of interesting vs. uninteresting
numbers, I offer the following "proof" that all future manned space
launches are destined to receive live TV coverage forever:  As the
frequency of launches increases and they become more and more routine, the
TV networks will eventually decide that such an event is no longer
newsworthy and therefore does not deserve live coverage.  Yet this event
itself (i.e.  the fact that launches have passed below the newsworthiness
threshold) would certainly be a milestone in the space program.  Naturally
such a launch immediately becomes newsworthy again, and the networks show
up in force.  Q.E.D.  :=)

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

Date: 24 Nov 82 15:24:48-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: more pressure discussion

Steven Gutfreund posed the question, "Do you really think that if I put
my hand in a vacuum bottle, my blood will start to boil?"

My answer is, "No, the pressure in your hand must stay at your body's
pressure - but your hand will very likely burst."

(I am assuming a seal at the wrist.)

Here we have a contrived example which fulfills the condition so
often erroneously presumed to obtain when a human body is exposed to
a vacuum. The condition being a pressure difference of 16 psi.

I doubt that the suction required to create a "hickey" is more
than 2 psi. Now imagine 8 times that. I think Steven's reference
to a "mere 16 psi" is completely unwarranted. Try blowing on
a tire gauge sometime (in the privacy of your own home, of course.)
I've never been able to register anything at all. I think it usually
takes one or two psi to move the gauge.

Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Date: 29 Nov 82 20:04:12-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Rockwell Settles out of Court

Rockwell International Corporation agreed today to pay the U.S. Government
$1.5 damages in a civil suit filed by the Justice Dept.  The settlement
comes out of the three year investigation by the government into charges
that Rockwell charged work on an Air Force satellite contract to the space
shuttle program.  No criminal charges were levied due to lack of evidence.

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

Date: 30 November 1982 2306-EST (Tuesday)
From: Kevin.Dowling at CMU-CS-A
To: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc
Subject: Mariner I and STS Journalists

Does anyone have more information on Mariner I regarding it's mission
being aborted because of a program error?

The two reports I've heard are:
	NASA was forced to explode the 1962 spacecraft Mariner I
when it veered off its course due to a misplaced hyphen in the
mathematical calculations. 
	The same only it was a misplaced comma in a FORTRAN DO Loop...
(something like DO 30 I = 10.1 vs. DO 30 I = 10,1 perhaps?)

			- - - - - - - - - -

Three memorable quotes from TV journalists covering STS missions I've
heard are:

STS-1
John Chancellor after listening to mission-control-to-shuttle talk:
	    "That was some very complex talk, by some very contemporary people"

STS-4?
Some woman journalist after the shuttle had taken off and the cameras were
tracking it: "Don't they get ill flying upside down like that?"

STS-1
Tom Brokaw (about STS launch problem):
	     "So, the problem it how to fool the computers?"

Joe Kerwin:  "Yes, that's what life's all about."

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

Date: 23 Nov 82 20:29:31-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!wivax!linus!genradbo!mitccc!jfw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Suits and 100% Oxygen

>From jfw Tue Nov 23 20:27:36 1982
To: David.Smith@cmu-a
Subject: Shuttle suits & 100% oxygen
Cc: jfw

The urge to breathe is caused by the presence of CO2 in the bloodstream.
When the bloodstream does not have enough CO2, the breathing reflex stops
being triggered.  Hyperventilation occurs when someone realizes that they
aren't trying to breathe "fast enough", and decides to correct this (which
in a normal atmosphere makes things worse, since it removes the rest of the
CO2 in the blood).  Since astronauts don't go through that, I would guess
that they simply know not to worry about it.
John Woods
jfw@MIT-Ccc@Mit-Mc, or

 ...!decvax!genradbo!mitccc!jfw (you are lost in a maze of twisty little uucp paths)

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

Date: 29 Nov 82 15:08:55-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton at Ucb-C70
Subject: How to fund the space program
Article-I.D.: watmath.3958
Via:  Usenet; 30 Nov 82 21:33-PST

It occurs to me that if we were seriously worried about funding dropping
for the space program, we could stop it.

Have you ever considered not just how many people support the space program
but just exactly who they are?  It seems to me they are all pretty powerful
people.  If we wanted to, and were firm enough in our convictions, a strike
by supporters of the space program could shut down the entire country
completely - more so than any strike by teamsters or air traffic controllers
ever could.  (I've long been of the opinion that computer programmers could
do the very same thing)

Now, my personal opinion is that any sort of strike action is bad, but if
they really cut back on space research, then Sen. Proxmire, watch out!

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

Date: 29 Nov 82 17:23:45-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: National strike
Article-I.D.: watmath.3959
Via:  Usenet; 30 Nov 82 21:33-PST

	Are you turning into a functionalist in your old age, Brad?

	In any case, Brad (watmath!bstempleton)'s suggestion should be
rejected on both moral and practical grounds.  Supporters of the space
program are not a cohesive and well-organized lot: that's why the program
has been kicked around by Proxmire and friends.  If we can't organize a
letter-writing campaign, how in the devil are we going to organize a
nationwide strike behind the vague objective of more space funding?  People
may be behind the program, but it's a low-priority item for most of them,
and not something they'd strike for.

	Second,  such an action would damage the United States.  I don't
think that any supporter of NASA or the program would willingly do that -
certainly I wouldn't, and I don't think I'm unique.

	Finally, Brad's suggestion is ugly.  Even if such a strike could
be called, the winning of it would tarnish the program forever.  The great
strength of the space program is that it is an idealistic crusade.  The
innocence of the program - and of its supporters - is therefore its greatest
asset, and is a prize that must not be risked.

					Rick.

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

Date: 30 Nov 82 0:29:20-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: blood boiling and unpressure suits
Article-I.D.: watmath.3961
In-Reply-To: Article utzoo.2649
Via:  Usenet; 30 Nov 82 22:02-PST

	There is an easy way to settle this: take a monkey up in Columbia
and toss him out, wearing a wet suit, oxygen tank and face-covering helmet.
If the monkey is alive after 15 minutes or so, then the pressureless space
suits probably work.
	Of course, the crew of Columbia (or Challenger) will have to put
up with a monkey for a few days.
					Rick.

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

Date: 29 Nov 82 17:12:03-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!bukys at Ucb-C70
Subject: Space Recreation & Politics
Article-I.D.: rocheste.270
Via:  Usenet; 30 Nov 82 22:04-PST

It's OK with me if Hollywood or GM or whoever is allowed to use the
shuttle or space station for "trivial" purposes, as long as they do not
displace any "serious" users, and as long as they pay through the nose
(meaning real cost + good share of development cost).

I do not agree that the government has any duty to allow such use at
any price less than that.  In other words, Lucasfilm-imitators deserve
no government subsidies for cute zero-g film techniques.

Just think, if the government held fewer purse strings people would
have less excuse for complaining about those purse strings being jerked
around.  Further discussions of the revolutionary idea of "limited
government" should take place in "net.politics" PLEASE.

Liudvikas Bukys
 ...!seismo!rochester!bukys

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

Date: 29 Nov 82 21:31:55-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!ian at Ucb-C70
Subject: Suits needed - some facts
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.446
Via:  Usenet; 30 Nov 82 21:46-PST

Somebody asked for some facts on the `survival in free space' discussion.
Here are a few facts. Not the final answer though!

You could not survive in free space by breath-holding without a pressure
suit. (You might, as has been said, survive the loss of a glove if the
suit were sealed at the cuff to prevent pressure loss). Otherwise,
the air trapped in the lungs would expand (the chest viscera being
reasonably flexible) and burst the alveoli (lung sacs about the diameter
of the thickness of a cigarette paper). The air which escapes enters the
chest cavity, and from there will usually
enter the pulmonary circulation; bubbles of air in the blood lodge in 
inconvenient places like the brain, spine, etc. This accounts for 
a high percentage of the SCUBA fatalities attributed by non-diving
coroners and an ignorant press to `drowning'. Refer to Miles & Mackay,
page 67, for gory details, including photographs (see notes). They further
add (same page):
``In an attempt to find just where the lung damage was occurring Wright
  carried out further experiments on fresh unchilled cadavers. He found
  that the intra-tracheal pressures required to induce trauma were 80
  mm.Hg in an unbound corpse, 93 mm.Hg with an abdominal binder
  and from 133-190mm.Hg in those where both chest and abdomen were
  bound.....''.
Not sure if a pressure suit would provide the same effect as
the binders used here; I suspect not.
For conversion, 760 mm.Hg approx.==14.7 psi. It is left as an exercise
to see how little change of pressure can be tolerated in leaving a capsule
for free space without a suit, before death ensues. You might make it,
but don't ask me to go first!

``Further support for the belief that it is stretching rather than excess
pressure which causes the lung damage comes from the well-established
fact that very high intra-pulmonary pressures, such as those which
occur in violent coughing, can be tolerated without harm.'' (ibid, p69).

The answer? Not yet, sorry, just a few facts.

Ian Darwin, Toronto, Canada.
uucp: decvax!utzoo!utcsstat!ian
Programmer, SCUBA instructor (PADI), etc.

Notes (roughly in refer(1) format).
%A Stanley Miles and D. E. Mackay
%T Underwater Medicine
%I Adlard Coles Limited
%C London
%D Fourth Edition, 1976
%P 66-69

[I haven't read the following work, just extracted the citation from
Mile's bibliography.]
%A M. S. Malhotra and H. C. Wright
%T The effect of a raised intrapulmonary pressure on the lungs
of fresh unchilled bound and unbound cadavers
%I Medical Research Council
%R R.N.P.R.C. Report U.P.S., 189
[Don't ask me about RNPRC - Royal Navy something-or-other - ask a Limey]
%D 1960

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

Date: 29 Nov 82 16:05:03-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: Evolution of the Space Suit: book review and comments
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.222
Via:  Usenet; 1 Dec 82 0:17-PST

Inspired by the net discussion, I have been reading "Suiting up for  Space,
the  Evolution  of  the Space Suit" by Lloyd Malan; I'm about 2/3 finished.
It has an excellent history  of  early  efforts,  revealing  that  all  the
suggestions  made  on  the  net  were  being  actively explored in the late
forties.

The partial pressure suit,  which  David  Smith  has  described,  was  more
advanced  than the full pressure suit through the fifties. Everybody wanted
a full pressure suit but the mobility and ventilation  problems  were  very
hard  to solve. I realized from the illustrations that the partial pressure
suit was familiar to me from many illustrations of pilots standing next  to
their  aircraft.  These  suits  are  more  impressive looking than the full
pressure suits of the sixties, which look baggy when uninflated.

The outstanding pioneer of the partial  pressure  suit  was  Dr.  James  P.
Henry, who put in many hours in pressure chambers. An incident is described
in which his hand swelled up like balloon  at  an  equivalent  altitude  of
58,000  ft.  He  concluded  that this was due to water vapor in the tissues
since the condition reversed with no ill effects. Note that this was  under
conditions  where  the  ambient  pressure  was marginally below water vapor
pressure. Later tests showed that one could survive with a partial pressure
suit (with gloves!) at 106,000 feet. The suit was never considered suitable
for routine use in vacuum conditions.

There is an  illustration  of  an  advanced  "mechanical  restraint"  suit,
developed  around  1960 by Hans Mauch, which leaves most of the body at low
gas pressure, effectively using the skin as a bladder. This suit  may  have
been  alluded  to  in the net.space article "Nonairtight Pressure suits". I
don't no what became of this line of development, although the author  does
mention  that Mauch's efforts influenced the design of the Mercury pressure
suit.

The author quotes a first hand description of a decompression  incident  in
which  the  subject's  face plate blew off at 70,000 feet (equivalent.) The
subject loss consciousness immediately. He reported hearing  a  sound  like
"zzzzzzzzzzit",  and  the  next  thing  he  knew he was being revived after
emergency repressurization. The author goes  on  to  state,  "I  have  been
tested  in  altitude  chambers  to  47,000  feet at least five times. I can
assure the reader that gases in an  unprotected  body  expand  swiftly  and
painfully."

The book also contains a long description  of  Eugene  Cernan's  experience
with  his  EVA. It is quoted from an anonymous NASA doctor. It contains the
statement "A leak in one of the gaskets around his wrist could have  killed
him." I think Boebert's recollection of a gloveless EVA is ludicrous, as is
Keith Lynch's suggestion of lunar "streaking".  Granted, the body would not
explode  like  a  bomb  in a vacuum, but it would still experience multiple
fatal catastrophes. I still maintain that "Dave's" suitless EVA in 2001  is
a gross impossibility.

Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Date:     1 Dec 82 01:06-EST (Wed)
From:     Charles Weems <weems.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
Subject:  Little lost glove
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 1 Dec 82 3:58-EST

    The glove was lost by Ed White on the first American spacewalk (Gemini 4).
He wasn't wearing it at the time.  I don't know the details, but perhaps they
had a different set of gloves (maybe more flexible?) for non-EVA activities
and one of these got loose.

                                           chip weems
                                           weems.umass-coins@udel-relay

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

Date: 30 Nov 1982 2041-EST
From: Ron <FISCHER at RUTGERS>
Subject: The infamous Lost Glove
To: space at MIT-MC

A friend tells me that the lost glove was only a removable outer glove
and its loss doesn't expose skin.

(ron)
-------

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

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

02-Dec-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #62
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 62

Today's Topics:
		       Space Recreation & Politics
			   Rockwell Settlement
		      Challenger Moved to Launch Pad
				Lost Glove
		     Dave Bowman's Space Walk, et al.
		 Re: Rockwell Settles out of Court - (nf)
		      How to fund the space program
			      It's the Arts
			       Space Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 December 1982 06:25-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Space Recreation & Politics
To: harpo!seismo!rocheste!bukys at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think I agree with you. Although perhaps NASA should fund some
getaway special where a small explosion in zero-gee vacuum is filmed
to give us the basic idea how much different those special effects
will be from ones filmed on Earth, movie studies should pay their own
way when making special-effects for movies en masse in space. But NASA
should permit that kind of use before they permit random people just
wasting shuttle time for a vacation flight that won't return even a
bunch of exposed movie film.

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

Date: 30 Nov 82 16:58:49-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genradbo!mitccc!jmturn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Rockwell Settlement
Article-I.D.: mitccc.200
In-Reply-To: Article alice.1216
Via:  Usenet; 1 Dec 82 4:33-PST

$1.5 what? Million? Billion? (I suspect million, but who knows?)
					James

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

Date: 30 Nov 82 15:20:31-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Challenger Moved to Launch Pad
Article-I.D.: alice.1219
Via:  Usenet; 1 Dec 82 7:02-PST

The Challenger was today rolled to launch pad 39A in preparations
for STS-6, now set to launch on 24 January, 1983.  The six hour
rollout, which began at 0419 EST, was completed without a hitch.
The next major task in the pre-launch preparations will be a
20-second test firing of the Challenger's main engines, now
set for 20 December.

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

Date:  1 December 1982 13:52 est
From:  Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Lost Glove
To:  Space at MIT-MC

I'm glad my note sparked some comments; I do want to clarify/reiterate
that I wasn't asserting the truth of the barehanded spacewalk, I was
simply reporting what I heard at a briefing at Houston.  I was a 2LT at
the time, and the briefer was an LCol, and under those circumstances you
don't (or didn't, at the time) jump up and say "That's impossible!"  I
still would like to know exactly what happened.  If somebody is certain
it was Ed White and somebody else has an address I would like to write
him and ask.

Earl

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

Date:  1 Dec 1982 1357-EST
From: PDL at MIT-XX (P. David Lebling)
Subject: Dave Bowman's Space Walk, et al.
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 27-Nov-82 0602-EST

This is summarized from the "Bioastronautics Data Book" (2nd Edition), a
NASA publication.  It refers to several animal studies which show a
similar response in several species to decompression to near-vacuum
conditions (1-2mm Hg). It then says, extrapolating those results to
humans:

	"Some degree of consciousness will probably be retained for 9 to
	11 seconds. In rapid sequence thereafter, paralysis will be
	followed by generalized convulsions and paralysis once again.
	During this time, water vapor will form rapidly in the soft
	tissues and somewhat less rapidly in the venous blood. This
	evolution of vapor will cause marked swelling of the body to
	perhaps as much as twice its normal volume unless it is
	restrained by a pressure suit. (It has been demonstated that a
	properly fitted elastic garment can entirely prevent ebullism at
	pressures as low as 15mm Hg absolute). ... Venous pressure will
	meet or exceed arterial pressure within 1 minute. There will be
	virtually no effective circulation of the blood."

	"...survival was the rule if recompression occurred within about
	90 seconds."

	"...some animals have died within seconds of decompression and a
	few others have had severe, lasting central nervous system
	damage."

The qualifier "some" is not too encouraging, but I'd call it possible if
unlikely.

Note also the remark about preventing ebullism (vaporization of body
fluids) with an "elastic garment".  It looks like the non-bulky spacesuit
has been tried and works, but only to a point.

	Dave
-------

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

Date: 30 Nov 82 16:59:02-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!zeppo!Anonymous at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Rockwell Settles out of Court - (nf)
Article-I.D.: zeppo.395
Via:  Usenet; 1 Dec 82 18:31-PST

#R:alice:-121600:zeppo:6300001:000:14
zeppo!Anonymous    Nov 30 16:45:00 1982

how much?????

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

Date: 2 December 1982 01:05-EST
From: Jacob Moskowitz <JMSK at MIT-MC>
Subject:  How to fund the space program
To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC


 ...Have you ever considered not just how many people support the space program
    but just exactly who they are?  It seems to me they are all pretty powerful
    people.  If we wanted to, and were firm enough in our convictions, a strike
    by supporters of the space program could shut down the entire country
    completely...

A very interesting suggestion. But assuming most space nuts are R&D/Engineering
types, what about the familiar problem of strikes by such workers, whose
contributions and hence economic effects may not be felt for months or even
years ?

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

Date: 30 Nov 82 11:29:37-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Ucb-C70
Subject: It's the Arts
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2651
Via:  Usenet; 1 Dec 82 22:48-PST

   It will come as a surprise to some, but NASA has long demonstrated
an appreciation of the arts. Certainly during the 60's,
they went to a fair amount of trouble to introduce various
painters and graphic artists to all aspects of the space program,
on the principle that history was being made, and that it would be
nice to have artists there to record it for posterity.
I've seen a number of the paintings that were produced at the time,
including one by Norman Rockwell (i think) of Gus Grissom (I think)
suiting up. Unfortunately, I can't remember just >where< I saw
these paintings; some, however, ought to be in a book titled
"The National Air and Space Museum", a marvelous picture-book
tour through that museum.
   I'm not sure what the current state of NASA's art program
is; however, rumour has it that they are considering reserving a
berth on a future shuttle flight for an artist of some sort,
for the same reason as before. Fact has it that Jeanette Robinson,
the wife of SF writer Spider Robinson, is actively seeking  to fill that
berth. She dances professionally, and co-wrote a novel (Stardance)
which described dancing in zero-g; she plans to see what sort of 
a dance she coold do in the shuttle's cargo bay. At the moment, 
she's looking around for a cheap supplier of pressure-suits
(although the pressureless space-suit that's been discussed
for the last couple of weeks would surely be more appropriate
for dancing (once it's developed) than the standard NASA-issue suit...)

-Kieran A. Carroll

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

Date: 1 Dec 82 7:32:52-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Space Suits
Article-I.D.: alice.1221
Via:  Usenet; 2 Dec 82 0:02-PST

Technicians have found what they are calling a tentative reason
for the failure of the two space suits aboard STS-5.

Apparently, in Bill Lenoir's suit, a pressure regulator broke
down because a few pieces of plastic that are supposed to keep
tension on springs were never installed.  They termed this due
to a lack of quality control.

In William Allen's suit, a fan broke down because of a ''fluke
mechanical failure.''

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

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

03-Dec-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #63
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf)
		   I should have read one more chapter
				Lost Glove
   Re: A penny for your thoughts, or NASA puts money where our mouth is
			   NASA on Space Suits
		       NASA broadcasts of shuttle 
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #60
			     STS-6 Space Walk
				 Ed White
		      December OASIS:  "Skynet 2000"
		Movies in space, and idea for George Lucas
			 Long strings of galaxies
	     Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 82 20:28:24-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!etistw3 at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf)

***** uicsovax:net.poems / ihuxe!pjane /  3:36 pm  Nov 15, 1982

		   How easy
			   the breath
				     that kills a flame.

		   How hard
			   to kindle
				    that light again.

		   Cold words kill
				  and
				     kind words kindle.

		   By words withheld,
				     a dream may dwindle.

	Unknown author.
				Sugar
				ihuxe!pjane

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

Date: 1 Dec 82 10:53:22-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: I should have read one more chapter
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.224
Via:  Usenet; 2 Dec 82 3:33-PST

I reported having read 2/3 of "Suiting up for Space: the Evolution of
the Space Suit" by Lloyd Mallan. from the material I had read so far,
I drew the conclusion that "Dave's" entry into the airlock without a
helmet was a "gross impossibility", as I put it.

Well, the next chapter was about animal experiments and it included
an account of some chimp experiments designed to answer the question:

"Can a healthy, unprotected mammal survive swift decompression of a
pressurized cabin flying through a vacuum?"

The chimps were decompressed rapidly from 35,000 feet to the near
vacuum of 150,000 feet. Their period of useful consciousness ranged
from 3.6 to 29.7 seconds. They were left at 150,000 feet for up to
210 seconds. The result:

"Chimpanzees have demonstrated they can survive explosive decompression
from 35,000 feet to the near-vacuum of 150,000 feet for three-and-a-half
minutes without any noticeable residual ill effects after a four-hour
recovery time."

This leaves me with a lot of questions about the experiment. It seems
like they would have died from anoxia in 3.5 minutes. Did they have oxygen
masks? Also, it seems to be a contradiction of a lot of statements
and implications made earlier in the book. At any rate, it looks like
"Dave's" EVA has to be promoted from grossly impossible to marginally
possible at least. Put more simply:

		I WAS WRONG!

Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Return-Path: <CLJones@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Date:  2 December 1982 08:17 est
From:  CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Lost Glove

Yes, it was an outer glove of Ed White's which floated out the hatch
when he was doing his EVA.  I recall seeing pictures of it floating away
in Life magazine.  You could look it up--the spacewalk was in June of
1965 I believe.  You will not be able to write to Ed White as he was one
of the three astronauts to perish in the Apollo pad fire.

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

Date: 1 Dec 82 16:38:08-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: A penny for your thoughts, or NASA puts money where our mouth is

	Sorry to hit the net with this, but it's the old uucp->ARPA bugaboo...
Go to space to shoot null-g special effects? Come on!  They do very well now,
and for a fraction of the cost moving a film crew and actors up there would
cost, even with the shuttle.  Not to mention the hazards of working in
a low-pressure environment with untrained personnel...

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

Date: 1 Dec 82 16:50:14-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz at Ucb-C70
Subject: NASA on Space Suits

	*sigh*. I, too, now contribute to the drivel.  I just talked to a
fellow named Dave Alter at Johnson Space Center in Houston, to whom I was 
shuttled when they found out I wanted an informed statement on this.
When queried on "mechanical restraint suits" (note the quotes), his response
was, "They did look at such things.  They were ruled out for the type of
things we are doing.  Partly was the technical difficulty of actually covering
all the various openings we (humans) have; partly was finding some material
which could protect the skin sufficiently via mechanical restraint, have the
partial permeability to allow perspiration and heat dissipation without being
permeable enough to allow decompression, and finally to provide proper thermal
control when you don't have convection cooling/heating.  I have to go to a
meeting, it's been fascinating..." (this at 4:30 his local time...right.)

Let's let it go now.

				Dave Ihnat
				ihuxx!ignatz

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

Date: 2 Dec 1982 08:43 EST
From: wegeng.wbst at PARC-MAXC
Subject: NASA broadcasts of shuttle 
To: Space at MIT-MC

A good while ago someone mentioned that NASA transmits shuttle launches via
satelite, and that local cable tv companies might be able to receive the
transmissions.  I mentioned this fact to my local cable company and they seemed
interested, so could someone forward the details to me?  Does anyone know of a
cable company that has actually done this?  Thanks.

Don Wegeng
Xerox Corp
Rochester, NY

Wegeng.WBST@Parc-Maxc		(arpa)
seismo!rochester!rocksvax!dw		(uucp)
intelqa!rocks34!dw				(uucp)

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

Date: 1 Dec 82 10:20:13-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihldt!ll1!otuxa!we13!burl!rcj at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #60

Robert Elton Maas noted in an earlier article that the weather satellite
over the Pacific had suffered an infrared failure.
THE???? satellite.  What did he mean THE -- is there only one? I find that
difficult to believe.  Anyone have any further info?

				The MAD Programmer (alias Curtis Jackson)
				Western Electric - Burlington, NC
				(919) 228-3814 or Cornet 291

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

Date: 1 Dec 82 23:47:12-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: STS-6 Space Walk

NASA has extended the flight time of STS-6 by two days to allow astronauts
to take a space walk, now planned for that mission.  A full flight
schedule should be out in two weeks.

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

Date:  2 Dec 1982 at 1210-CST
From: kjm@UTEXAS-11
Subject: Ed White
To: space@mit-mc

Ed White (along with Virgil Grissom and Roger Chaffee) died in the
fire which occurred during an Apollo 1 countdown test.

			Ken Montgomery
			KJM at Utexas-11

[Thanks also to Clive Dawson for providing the date: January 1967,
 And to David Smith for providing another answer to this query.
	-The Moderator]

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

Date:  2-Dec-82 23:28:55 PST (Thursday)
From: Hamilton.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: December OASIS:  "Skynet 2000"
To: Space@MC
cc: Hamilton.es

TIME:	Saturday 11 December 7 pm

PLACE:	The Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA
	Building A-1, on El Segundo just west of Aviation

SPEAKER:  Dr. Charles L. Gould, Manager, STS Utilization Planning, Rockwell International

TOPIC: "Skynet 2000": a potential global communications system of the future.  This concept was first presented at the United Nations Space Conference in Vienna last August.

ADMISSION FREE; THE PUBLIC IS WELCOME.

OASIS is the Southern California Chapter of the L-5 Society

--Bruce

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

Date: 1 Dec 82 2:19:48-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton at Ucb-C70
Subject: Movies in space, and idea for George Lucas
Article-I.D.: watmath.3965
Via:  Usenet; 2 Dec 82 23:49-PST

A recent mention of movies in space brought back to me an old idea that
I have had for some time.  It might be neat if this message got to
Lucasfilms, although I won't be surprised if they have not already thought
of this.

The idea is to make a movie in the space shuttle, a science-fiction one.
Such a movie would be about the near future exploration of space.  The
special effects would be great and you could get real weightless shots.

The nice thing is that this is quite possible.  A director like George
Lucas or Steven Spielberg could afford to rent one shuttle flight, although
it would make the movie perhaps the most expensive ever made.  They could
recover the cost because:
	a) The film would become an instant classic, as the first movie
	made in space.  People would see it even if it were crap.
	b) A name like Lucas making an SF movie would cause millions to see
	it even if it weren't in the shuttle.

The interesting point is that you could probably simulate the weightless
conditions with special effects right on earth for less then the rental
of a shuttle.  The reasons to take the shuttle are
	a) You can advertise that you shot the film in space and
	b) The director gets to go up on the shot, probably to act as
	cameraman as well, and thus realizes the dream of many an SF
	person, which is to go into space.

Find actors that can stand the free-fall and I'd be glad to crew such a
mission.   NASA might also approve because of their plan of taking artists
into space to bring back the message of space to the people.  What better
way to do it than a Lucasfilms movie?

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

Date: 3 December 1982 04:27-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Long strings of galaxies
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

In case you missed this in Tuesday's newspapers or AP wire,
astronomers using radiotelescopes in Puerto Rico and West
Virginia have discovered a string of galaxies 700 million
lightyears long, stretching from Pegasus to Ursa Major as viewed
from here. Compare this to the Virgo supercluster which is only
about 50 megaparsecs (160 million lightyears) from end to end.
This find leads credence to the theory that the Universe was
initially mostly uniform on the large scale but then collapsed
in places to form long narrow strands of material that later formed
chains of galaxies, and then yet later formed lumps along these
strands and at intersections of strands which developed into
superclusters of galaxies; while leading away from the alternative
theory that the first collapsing was into whorlpools of matter that
formed clusters of galaxies. (Note that in the large context, galaxies
and clusters of galaxies are pointlike, being finite in all three
dimensions, whereas strands are linelike, being infinite in one dimension
and finite in the other two. The Universe seems to have locally
collapsed in a linelike rather than pointlike or planelike way.)

Why may this be important to space travel? If the Universe consists
of a web of connected strands instead of isolated superclusters,
it'll be easier to reach all parts of the Universe because it'll
be possible to derive energy for propulsion while travling along
strands instead of having to coast with essentially zero energy
input along great voids from one supercluster to another. Thus
once we acquire the ability to jump between neighboring galaxies
in a cluster we may suddenly be able to circumnavigate the whole
Universe instead of just the Virgo Supercluster.

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

Date: 1 Dec 82 16:26:36-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!utah-cs!sask!hardie at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf)
Article-I.D.: sask.99
In-Reply-To: Article hp-pcd.497
Via:  Usenet; 3 Dec 82 2:17-PST

This is a picky detail but is it not more accurate to say that the instruments
on board the satellite launched by Columbia did the detecting of things like
dry riverbeds? Columbia itself was the 'delivery truck'?
(Which does not detract from Columbia at all - MORE POWER TO IT I say!)

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

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

04-Dec-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #64
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 64

Today's Topics:
			    CCD imaging arrays
	     Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf)
			  designing space suits
			 Reagan speaks in Brazil 
		      A little bit too picky....   
		 [development] and the current arguments
   Re: A penny for your thoughts, or NASA puts money where our mouth is
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 82 13:58:47-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at Ucb-C70
Subject: CCD imaging arrays

I'm interested in obtaining some CCD imaging arrays for amateur astronomical
research projects. I know the device are extremely expensive, but does anyone
have an inside track to some low cost (or free samples). I think an array
of around 480 x 380 ( Fairchild makes such a device ) would be very nice
for our applications.

			Signed, almost afraid to post this because I
			am asking for the impossible!!!

			Ron Meyer  inuxa!rrm
			Indiana Astronomical Society

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

Date: 2 Dec 82 14:14:25-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf)

	Sigh.  You're right, of course.  I had hoped that the riverbeds
would serve as major channels, but I forgot that they must as well be
conveniently placed.
	I hadn't thought about the other angle.  That *is* exciting.
						Rick.

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

Date:  3 Dec 1982 at 1144-CST
From: kwebb@UTEXAS-11
Subject: designing space suits
To: space@mit-ai
cc: kwebb

The space suit discussion has been very interesting so far. I'm surprised that
Jerry Pournelle hasn't contributed since he used to design spacesuits,
according to an article he wrote (called "About Those Brass Brassieres", from
Destinies, Vol.2, No.3, Summer 1980).  He refers to NASA Report CR-1892,
"Development of a Space Activity Suit" by James Annis and Paul Webb, published
in 1971.  The SAS consists of a tight-fitting porous garment with a ring seal
around the neck and a bubble helmet. The garment is for support; skin holds in
the air and sweat provides the air-conditioning. An outer Thermal-
Micrometeorite Protective Garment, also porous, would also be worn. During the
study, several suits were build and tested in vacuum chambers; they proved
more comfortable than standard space suits. Nasa has apparently done nothing
with the suits since. For more information, see the Destinies article, or ask
Jerry, or write for the report.

Kirk Webb, KWEBB at UTEXAS-11

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

Date: 03 Dec 1982 1041-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Reagan speaks in Brazil 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

		. . . . .
    From Brazil's futuristic capital, Reagan flew to this throbbing city
of 12 million, crowded skyscrapers, narrow streets and noisy traffic.
    He spoke and met with business leaders here in a mosaic-and-stone
palace used by the governor of the state of Sao Paulo. In the first
trace of ceremony during this visit, soldiers in scarlet jackets and
plumes stood at attention for his arrival.
    To his audience of 1,000, he said: ''Estamos como Brazil e nao
mudamos,'' which he translated as, ''We are with you Brazil, we will
not waver.''
    The audience, however, applauded only once during the speech, when
Reagan disclosed an offer for cooperation in space exploration.
Specifically he invited Brazil to send an astronaut to train with the
United States ''so that Brazil and the United States can one day
participate in a shuttle launch together as partners in space.''
    
nyt-12-02-82 1812est

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

Date: 03 Dec 1982 1009-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: A little bit too picky....   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

	Date: 1 Dec 82 16:26:36-PST (Wed)
	From: harpo!utah-cs!sask!hardie at Ucb-C70
	Subject: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf)

	This is a picky detail but is it not more accurate to say that the
	instruments on board the satellite launched by Columbia did the detecting
	of things like dry riverbeds? Columbia itself was the 'delivery truck'?
	(Which does not detract from Columbia at all - MORE POWER TO IT I say!)

No it is not more accurate.  The dry riverbeds were detected on the second
(or perhaps the third) flight,  using instruments mounted in the cargo bay.
The two satellites launched by STS-5 were communications satellites, not
remote sensing devices.  --Tom

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

Date: 3 Dec 1982 16:31:11-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: [development] and the current arguments

This was written when there was virtually no attention, even on the crackpot
level, given to those who talked about colonizing space.

We seem to supply ourselves with destructive dreams. Chief among these is the
Space Dream. It goes like this: We have made such a mess of our world that it
is of no use to attempt to bring order out of our chaos. So save our best
efforts for teh next green world. Tomorrow the moon, next week the planets,
next year the galaxy. We'll spread through teh heavens, and our seed will be
the bronzed, steel-eyed pioneers, and their fertile women, making green
wonderlands for us in the sky. That dream, Dake, eaes the conscience of those
who are doing less than their best. Thus it saps our energies. `This is man's
world. We must live here. We will never reach the stars.' I would like to see
every man believe that. And then if, in a thousand years, we break free, it
will be pure profit---and we will have something besides hate and conflict to
take along with us on the gleaming ships.

from BALLROOM OF THE SKIES by John D. MacDonald, copyright 1952

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

Date: 4 December 1982 04:26-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: A penny for your thoughts, or NASA puts money where our mouth is
To: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: 1 Dec 82 16:38:08-PST (Wed)
    From: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz at Ucb-C70
    Go to space to shoot null-g special effects? Come on!  They do
    very well now,
All the special effects I've seen have ranged from incorrect to grossly
idiotic. Things like smoke from explosions billowing and rising on the
Moon or in orbit are idiotic. The best effect I saw was in Silent Running
where the fireball grew and faded without rising, and where pieces of the
exploded spacecraft passed by the camera along straightline trajectories
in full perspective. But the fireball did seem to be self-contained as if
pressing against ambient gas pressure even though this was supposed to be
in deep space out near Saturn.  Please tell me where you've seen truly
correct special effects which look like the LEM takeoff (bits of material
flying up and back down along near-parabolic trajectories) or the
equivalent in an inertial frame (bits flying along near-linear
trajectories), with smoke particles and fireball plasma and gas doing
likewise (not billowing or contained in any way) because of very very very
small ambient gas pressure. Or how about a movie about people in
spacecraft that don't have artificial gravity, where they glob their
"glass" of water instead of drinking it in the usual way, where every so
often something loose drifts by the camera and they have to nonchalantly
snatch it out of the air and stow it somewhere, where bulkheads DON'T fall
loose from the ceiling and crush somebody against the floor. Let's have a
realistic movie about the first manned trip to Mars, which definitely
WON'T have artificial gravity on the spacecraft! You ever see one like
that?

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

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

05-Dec-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #65
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 65

Today's Topics:
			     Special effects
			 How to fund the program
		      Truly correct special effects
			    Shuttle in Science
		      Re: :=) Shuttle Coverage on TV
		 Re: deputy Ames director not impressive
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  4 Dec 1982 0630-EST
From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ
Subject: Special effects
To: rem at MIT-MC
cc: space at MIT-MC

I am disappointed that you do not consider 2001: A Space
Oddessy to be en excellent example of realistic special
effects.  From the pen floating in the weightless cabin
(apologies to those who aren't familiar with the movie)
to the EVA that Dave did without as helmut (which IS
possible -- Clarke and Kubrick took a lot of noise for
that scene, but they did their research too, and they're
right),  the movie is scientifically consistent.

Adam Mellis  (dvw.agm@MIT-OZ)

P.S.  Has anyone heard about 2010: Oddessy Two?
I hear it's sort of a loser.

-------

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

Date: Fri Dec  3 13:56:12 1982
From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton@Berkeley
Subject: How to fund the program
Message-Id: <8211041222.10535@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA>
Received: by UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA (3.227 [10/22/82])
	id A10533; 4-Dec-82 04:22:55-PST (Sat)
To: JMSK@mit-mc
Cc: space@mit-mc

It is true that a lot of space program supporters are R&D types whose work
stoppage would not be felt for some time, but consider what would happen if
a) Most computers in the country were shut down, including those that run
transit and traffic systems, aircraft control, governement cheques and payroll
of all companies.
b) Shipping and the postal service rely on their administrators and computers too.

Again, I'm not advocating this as a good thing for us to do, it's just interesting
to think what power would lie in our hands were it our wont to use it.

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

Date: 4 December 1982 07:37-EST
From: Stephen John Kudlak <FFM at MIT-MC>
Subject:   Truly correct special effects
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

  I think 2001 did a very good job, along with (as you mentioned) Silent 
Running.  Of course, both Silent Running and Alien had good specials, but
assumed artificial gravity of some sort.
  Trivia note:  A technical error is seen in 2001 where Floyd is on his way
to the moon and drinks through a straw.  The liquid (probably viscous) slips
down in the straw a couple of inches due to gravity on the drink.  This is the
only one I noticed, but they didn't attempt any spectacular explosions either.
The landing of the Aries stirred up the appropriate dust and it traveled in the
appropriate arc, though.
						FFM

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

Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-G received by CMU-10A at 4-Dec-82 10:21:54-EST
Date: 4 Dec 1982 07:41:53-EST
From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-CS-G at CMU-CS-A
Subject: Shuttle in Science

The 3 December issue of Science contains 7 reports on shuttle science,
including pictures of those famous dry riverbeds.  The report titles
are: "Use of the Space Shuttle for Remote Sensing Research: Recent
Results and Future Prospects," "Shuttle Imaging Radar Experiments,"
"Subsurface Valleys and Geoarcheology of the Eastern Sahara Revealed by
Shuttle Radar," "Mineral Identification from Orbit: Initial Results
from the Shuttle Multispectral Infrared Radiometer," "Carbon Monoxide
Measurements in the Troposphere," "Initial Analysis of OSTA-1 Ocean
Color Experiment Imagery," and "Feature Identification and Location
Experiment."

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

Date: 2 Dec 82 20:27:31-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!zeppo!whuxk!houxm!ihnp4!ihldt!ll1!otuxa!we04-3b!princeto!dpd at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: :=) Shuttle Coverage on TV
Article-I.D.: princeto.116
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4499
Via:  Usenet; 4 Dec 82 2:17-PST

Actually I envision a cable station devoted to covering space travel
which will be a continuous event.  Similar to the gavel to gavel
coverage of Congress on the (I think) USA Network.

People who read netnews will subscribe to this channel which will be
more interesting than netnews.

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

Date: 3 Dec 82 17:02:35-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: deputy Ames director not impressive
Article-I.D.: omsvax.250
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4328
Via:  Usenet; 4 Dec 82 18:03-PST

Well, this is interesting.  Let's take it a point at a time:

"They will be man-visited and man-occupied for short periods of time. But I
don't consider that a permanent presence in space. I think we'll start
building toward that."

[Comment by REM: Gee, 25 years from now we still won't have a
permanent space station, not to mention an L-5 colony? That would be
tragic if he's right.]

Tragic indeed.  But what does he consider a short period of time?  Under
six months?  In that case we ALREADY have a permanent presence in
space, at least some of us (the Russians) do.  If he insists on
longer, I will bet a bottle of Chivas to a Coke that the criterion wil
be fulfilled by the Russians within 5 years.  The huge booster they
are reported to be perfecting has to be intended to ferry large masses
for the construction of permanent stations.

[Comment by REM: That second reason is a good one, but the first and
last are in the realm of Golden Fleece reasons for spending 1% of our
national budget! This NASA/AMES official left out (1) materials and
maybe even energy from space (2) innovations in manufacturing (3)
survival of our species and society via dispersial of habitat beyond
Earth (4) understanding of evolution of Universe on the large scale
(via astronomy) to understand our final destiny. Unless the interview
was grossly truncated, I think this official short-changed the space
program.]

Yes, though short-changed may be an inadequate word.  Maybe sabotaged is
better.  I note that he completely left out the latest party line at
NASA: the military purpose.  And REM has left off a number of reasons
which might have more immediate impact on a taxpayer: placement and
repair of sattellites (we still can't do that in high orbit, even
with the shuttle), and research other than astronomical which can have
economic benefit, or can improve quality of life, to name a couple.
Lines of research which might prove fruitful are medical
investigations into effects of zero-g on physiology, wide-area sensor
studies of geology and topography, and studies of the upper
atmosphere from above.  Granted, not all these things require manned
spaceflight, but they'd be a lot easier and cheaper to do if done from
a permanent station than from a series of specialized robots.



				Bruce Cohen
				Intel
				...{pur-ee,hplabs}!intelqa!omsvax!bc

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

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

06-Dec-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #66
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 66

Today's Topics:
			  Mis-information Wanted
		 Re: deputy Ames director not impressive
      images from Voyager, STS and Interstellar Telescope Mission 1
		2001 special effects: Liquid in the straw
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 82 13:56:43-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekchips!marcw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Mis-information Wanted
Article-I.D.: tekchips.162
Via:  Usenet; 5 Dec 82 4:30-PST

The staff at the Kendall planetarium at OMSI, the
Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, is starting
production of a new show called (for the time being)
"What's Wrong with this Picture?".  The show will
be present common misconceptions about astronomy
and provide the correct information upon which
the misconception is based.  You can help by
sending us your favorite misconceptions.  Please
reply directly to me (address shown below) or to:

	Dwight Gruber
	OMSI - H. C. Kendall Planetarium
	4015 SW Canyon Rd.
	Portland, OR  97225

	(503) 222 - 2828

All entries should be postmarked no later than
Thursday, 9 December, 1982 (we're working with
a rather tight schedule).  If you're the first
to suggest a particular misconception, you will
be included in the credits for the show.

Thanks for the mis-information...

			Marc Wells
					
via uucp:    ...!{dec | ucb}vax!teklabs!marcw
                (Please do not route return mail
                through "ucbcad" if possible, thanks.)
via CSNET:   teklabs!marcw@tek
via ARPAnet: teklabs!marcw.tek@rand-relay

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

Date: 5 December 1982 19:12-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: deputy Ames director not impressive
To: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think you misunderstood my point about "we" not having a permanent
presence in space even in 2000. I was speaking of the USA not the USSR
in the "we". I think the USSR will reach the point of overlapping
missions within a couple years (at most 5) after which time there will
never be a moment without a soviet astronaut in space.  (That's my
precise definition of permanent manned presence in space, overlapping
manned space missions from that time onward to the distant future.)
By comparison that deputy NASA director would have us with only 2-week
or slightly longer (perhaps a month or two) missions all the way thru
to 2000, with no permanent structure in space for them to visit, and
by the time "we" establish a permanent presence the soviets will be
doing grander things we can only speculate at now (L-5, O'Neill LEO
city, manned Mars orbiter, full military fleets commanded by an
admiral or general in space, etc.).

P.s. for comparison, permanent unmanned space presence was established
in 1957 with Sputnik 1. There's never been a moment since then without
at least one active man-made satellite in space.

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

Date: 5 December 1982 19:50-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: images from Voyager, STS and Interstellar Telescope Mission 1
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Does anybody on this list know how good the pictures starfields from
Voyager would be and how much maneuvering fuel it would take to aim
the camera to take a bunch of pictures of nearby stars to get good
paralax measurements? I wouldn't want to spend Voyager's fuel taking
pictures and lose Uranus and Neptune, but if taking pictures is free
except for expense of personnel and computers on Earth processing the
data then I think we ought to do it. Anybody know for sure how
feasible it is to use Voyager camera together with Earth or STS camera
to get accurate paralax measurements of nearby stars?

The current (December) issue of Sky&Telescope (on page 528) has a pair
of pictures from the IECM camera-photometer on STS. One was an hour
after the payload bay doors were opened on STS-2, totally ruined by
streaks from debris still floating by the camera. The other was during
a "quiet period" on STS-4 when stars as faint as 9th magnitude were
visible in broad daylight. The latter picture seemed to be good
quality. I wonder if Voyager does that well?

I'm thinking it might be reasonable to send a small space telescope
out on a mission of its own just for the sake of accurate parallax
measurements. Perhaps after we develop the ion rocket we can send a
continuously-accellerating probe out beyond our solar system in just a
year or so to get much improved parallax measurements on stars
hundreds of light years away. Maybe out first genuine interstellar
space mission, out a lightyear or so from here, won't be to look for
life but rather just to get parallax measurements on distant galaxies
to compute more accurately the Hubble constant, and thus the age of
the Universe. (Note that parallax measurements aren't affected by
dimming by intervening gas&dust as Cephid-variable and
average-bright-galaxy methods might be. They're affected only by
curvature of space caused by intervening massive objects.)

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

Date:  5 Dec 1982 2216-EST
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at SCRC-TENEX>
Subject: 2001 special effects: Liquid in the straw
To: space at MIT-MC

If I were designing a drink container for space, I would give the
the container a small amount of hysterisis, to give exactly the
behaviour noted.  Probably just the right amount of stiffness in
a plastic bag would do the trick.
-------

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

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

07-Dec-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #67
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 67

Today's Topics:
		 Forbidden Planet explosion ; 2001 flaws
			Re: images from Voyager...
			      Misconceptions
			     2010: Oddesy Two
			      Burning Oxygen
			     Asteroid mining
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 82 22:32:26-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: Forbidden Planet explosion ; 2001 flaws

"Forbidden Planet" had a good planet explosion effect at the end.
To start with, the explosion was viewed from a great enough distance
that the planet appeared initially point-like. The explosion itself
appeared as a luminous circle which expanded rapidly in radius and
then faded (all in silence.) Not beyond criticism, I suppose, but infinitely
superior to the firecracker effects in Star Wars. It looked a lot like the
upper atmosphere dye explosions which were launched from Virginia in the
sixties. Remember them?

Also, a technical flaw in "2001" is the existence of "star drift" to indicate
the stately motion of the "Discovery". I would guess that they knew it was
wrong but left it in anyway. "2001" also had billowing gas and dust in 
the lunar vacuum.

Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

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

Date:  6-Dec-82 14:30:35 PST (Monday)
From: Lynn.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: images from Voyager...
In-reply-to: Robert Elton Maas's message of 5 December 1982 19:50-EST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: REM at MIT-MC, Lynn.es

Very creative idea to make parallax measurements, but it needs some 
more work to be practical.  Parallax measurements now are practically 
useless beyond a few hundred light years, because the measurements get 
smaller than the noise.  The size of the measurements is proportional 
to baseline (normally the distance across the earth's orbit, by which 
photographs 6 months apart differ) and proportional to telescope focal 
length (or image scale).  The loss in focal length between our large 
telescopes (tens of meters) and Voyager (I think a meter or so) loses 
more than its present distance gains in baseline (about 12 AU instead 
of 2 that we get with the earth).  In fact the loss of radio contact 
at perhaps 50 to 100 AU will prevent us from ever getting much accuracy 
gain using Voyager.  

At least the attitude adjustment gas should not be a factor in Voyager 1, 
since its electrical camera platform maneuvering mechanism (which does not 
use the jets) is still working.  

As for sending out a probe with ion rocket, let's say we can get a light 
year away in a reasonable time.  Now we are talking gains of 30,000 in 
the baseline.  But it will take one heck of a transmitter and antenna to 
get the data back to us, say a million times more effective than what is 
on Voyager.  And the baseline improvement would barely get a marginal 
measurement on the nearest galaxy.  We would need at least another factor 
of 1000 to get good distances for the Hubble constant.

Now indirectly it would improve measurements by cepheid variable or 
other means, because they are calibrated by parallax measurements of 
nearby objects.  But this indirectness probably means only a slight 
increase in cepheid distance accuracy, and still won't help the 
intervening material problem with it.

The large space telescope may be able to get us better parallax 
measurements by reducing the noise (atmospheric disturbances of the 
incoming light) rather than increasing the measurement.  I would 
estimate the improvement to be about a factor of 10.  

/Don Lynn

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

Date:     6 Dec 82 19:17:28-EST (Mon)
From:     the soapbox of Gene Spafford <spaf.gatech@UDel-Relay>
To:       space-enthusiasts at Mit-Mc
Subject:  Misconceptions

marcw @ teklabs asked us for our favorite misconceptions.  The only
problem is, I don't know which of the things I believe happen to
be misconceptions!  Maybe they all are....  Could it be that
the moon isn't the sun at night, and that the world may not be
flat?  Perish the thought!

Lest anyone think I'm poking fun at Marc, let me just point out
that language is so much fun I just couldn't resist.

:-)>
Spaf

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

Date:  6 Dec 1982 2054-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: 2010: Oddesy Two
To: dvw.agm at MIT-OZ
cc: space at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

I  wasn't  too  impressed with 2010.  It answers some of the questions
left open by 2001, but, on the other hand, the open-endedness of  2001
was one of its pluses.

I was going to say that the conversations in  2010  sounded  too  much
like  Mr.   Wizard lecturing a Jr.  High student.  Especially when the
other person responds, "I didn't  know  that!"   to  something  that's
almost   intuitively  obvious  to  a  casual  observer,  let  alone  a
scientist.  But, over dinner tonight, I was reading the review in  the
January  issue  of Discover, and they say it even better:  "The humans
in this spacescape are hard to  distinguish  from  one  another;  most
sound like Clarke carrying on a conversation with himself."  If you've
read Michner's 'Space' you'll have a feel for Clarke's dialogue.

However,  if  you're  really  curious  to  know what happened to David
Bowman and the Discovery, this is the only way to find out!

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

Date: 3 Dec 82 2:29:40-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genradbo!mitccc!jmturn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Burning Oxygen
Article-I.D.: mitccc.208
In-Reply-To: Article azure.1499
Via:  Usenet; 6 Dec 82 21:16-PST

"Pure Oxygen burns so nicely"
It is more accurate to say that pure oxygen promotes oxidation so nicely
(no big surprise there...) The key thing to remember is that a spark in
a pure oxygen atmosphere doesn't cause the room to blow up, but if the
spark lands on a couch, the couch is going to be awfully likely to combust
in quick fashion. The reason you don't smoke when O2 is in use is to
prevent your seat/the floor from going up if you drop the bloody thing.

						Flaming without Oxygen
							James

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

Date: 6 Dec 82 13:21:25-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!rjs at Ucb-C70
Subject: Asteroid mining
Article-I.D.: floyd.914
Via:  Usenet; 6 Dec 82 23:12-PST

I've heard that one way of making space technology profitable would
be to mine metals from the asteroid belt.  How can this metal be
brought safely to earth?  It seems that you would need to bring vast
quantities down to be worthwhile, and I've heard that dropping
meteorites of respectable size onto the earth is a good way to drastically
change the environment for a long time.

Of course: mail answers to me and I'll summarize.

	Robert Snyder
	floyd!rjs

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

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

08-Dec-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #68
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:
		      Re: :=) Shuttle Coverage on TV
			     asteroid mining
			    Re: Burning oxygen
			      Clarke's 2010
			      Burning Oxygen
			     Asteroid mining
			  Foam metal delivery  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 82 19:27:31-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: :=) Shuttle Coverage on TV

NASA does use a domestic communications satellite to relay shuttle
video and audio.  My understanding is that Satcom F-1, transponder 9 is
used for this purpose (although I don't have a satellite receiver
to verify it.)

Satcom-1 was the original "cable TV" satellite, used until Satcom-3R
became operational as the prime satellite for cable television programs.
When 3R went on line, 1 was repositioned and is now used only lightly
for special contract services such as NASCOM.

Since most cable operators have only a single dish pointed at 3R, they
are unable to carry NASCOM.  Newer or richer companies might have a
spare dish (and receiver) that could be used during shuttle flights if
enough people expressed their interest.  In my case, the local company
told me before STS-4 that they were willing to carry NASCOM if I found
out for them the appropriate transponder, as long as it was on 3R; they
were obviously unable to provide coverage.

Phil Karn
 

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

Date:  7 Dec 1982 0943-EST
From: Lantz at RUTGERS (Brian Lantz)
Subject: asteroid mining
To: space at MIT-MC

	I believe that the idea is not to use asteroids to supply metals to
the earth's surface, where they are relatively plentiful, but to use them
in earth orbit where they are extremely expensive.

Brian Lantz

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

Date:  7 Dec 1982 0957-EST
From: Ron <FISCHER at RUTGERS>
Subject: Re: Burning oxygen
To: space at MIT-MC

In reply to James (mitccc!jmturn) message.

Hmm, so I guess now we have seen an anerobic flamer?

Of course on this list there are often quite a few "flames in a vacuum."

(ron)

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

Date:  7 Dec 1982 1402-EST
From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ
Subject: Clarke's 2010
To: space at MIT-MC

I was immensely impressed by Clarke's new book.  Almost every short
chapter develops an interesting idea.  (Some years ago he said the
skyhook novel would be his last book and he would then just go
fishing.)

As for literary criticism, if you want appealing character
development, try Shakespeare - but you won't get many new ideas for
our time.  Most critics complained that the characters in 2001 were
boring missed Clarke's and Kubrick's principal intent - to show how
immature and trivial today's Man seems against the background of the
universe.

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

Date: 7 December 1982 20:52-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Burning Oxygen
To: decvax!genradbo!mitccc!jmturn at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think you're confusing the transitive and intransitive verb "burn".
Something can burn <intransitive> meaning it itself burns, or
something can burn something else <transitive>. The Sun doesn't burn,
it just glows, but it burns you. Oxygen doesn't burn, but it burns things.

That's just a quibble on English usage, but here's something factual
you missed. The reason you don't smoke <cigarettes> in oxygen
atmosphere is because it's not much fun having the whole cigarette
burn at high temperature in a flash fire that lasts about 1 or 2
seconds, not even giving you time to get the damn thing out of your
mouth before it scalds your lips. That of course assumes you can
light the thing in the first place. If you use a match, it'll scald
your finger instantly as the match burns as fast as the cigarette
would, not giving you time to touch it to the cigarette before it's
all burned up. You'll have to use the flint from a cigarette lighter
(an empty lighter should work fine) placed within spark distance of
the cigarette. Then you'll successfully set your cigarette on fire and
burn your lips as above.

The chance that the cigarette might be still burning 3 seconds after
you are done with it and might fall on upholstery and set it afire is
the least of your worries.

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

Date: 7 December 1982 20:57-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Asteroid mining
To: harpo!floyd!rjs at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I've proposed several times over the past year or two to make foam
steel or foam whatever-metal, of such low density that it floats in
the lower atmosphere. Once delivered in this way from Low Earth Orbit
to Low Floating Station, it can be towed around and then partly deflated
to bring it gently to ground level. Assuming a non-oxidizing gas such
as Hydrogen can be found to inflate this foam, and assuming foam-metal
can be made in the first place (experiment on STS-5, I'm still waiting
to hear the results), any other problems with this method?

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

Date: 07 Dec 1982 2250-PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Foam metal delivery  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

My friends at Livermore have thought about this, and have come to an
even nicer variant - namely the metal foam can have its cells filled
with VACUUM.  If you do the calculations, you find that almost any
meterial is easily strong enough under compression to make a flyable
vacuum balloon; the practical problem is simply buckling of the skin.
Foam with the appropriate bubble size solves the problem.

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

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

09-Dec-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #69
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 69

Today's Topics:
			      Spacesickness
	       Re: [development] and the current arguments
			 How to fund the program
			    Tsiolkovsky movie?
			   Re: asteroid mining
			    Re: Spacesickness
			  Re:Foam metal delivery
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-G received by CMU-10A at 8-Dec-82 12:49:56-EST
Date: 8 Dec 1982 12:47:54-EST
From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-CS-G at CMU-CS-A
To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc
Subject: Spacesickness

The 10 December 1982 issue of Science contains a short but disturbing
article on spacesickness among shuttle crews.  Half of all crew members
suffer from it.  It begins a few hours after launch and lasts about 2
days.  There are no known objective predictors of who will suffer (e.g.,
motion sickness on Earth), although NASA doctors can guess correctly more
often than not.  Current drugs (scopolamine + Dexedrine) are not always
effective, but biofeedback looks promising.  Even though this is a serious
problem, astronauts are understandably embarrassed and reluctant to
discuss it.

Comment: if this problem is not solved, it could be a powerful argument for
a space station, since everyone seems to recover after a couple of days.

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

Date: 8 December 1982 19:36-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: [development] and the current arguments
To: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: 7 Dec 1982 22:49:14-EST
    From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
    I consider the whole space-colonization scenario highly
    improbable. ... [Re Europeans settling the New World after
    Columbus] it was feasible for almost any set of fools to hire a
    ship and set out. \That/ is the unpredictable breakthrough that
    will hold up colonization.

Good point. To everybody: what can we do to create a situation in space
analagous to the post-Columbus period, when everyone knew the New World
existed, that it was harsh and dangerous and risky but at least it was
possible to go there and set up camp if you were determined enough and
could raise the money for a ship and crew? Perhaps we should set up space
stations that hardy volunteers can inhabit, we send them supplies enough
to get by but they are expected to maintain equipment and perform tasks
for us and work toward food self-sufficiency by raising plants on board
using the sunlight that is so abundant there? Or maybe we should just make
travel to space convenient and let volunteers create their own space
station? Or should we just sit by idly waiting for a miracle to occur?
Opinions?

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

Date: Thursday, 9 December 1982  00:06-EST
Sender: FEINBERG at MIT-OZ
From: FEINBERG at MIT-MC
To:   decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley
Cc:   SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: How to fund the program
In-reply-to: The message of Fri Dec  3 13:56:12 1982 from decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley

Gee, I guess you guys never heard of the Pinkerton Programming Staff!

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

Date: 7 Dec 82 17:56:19-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tektroni!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70
Subject: Tsiolkovsky movie?
Article-I.D.: tekcad.295
Via:  Usenet; 8 Dec 82 22:20-PST

  I've heard rumors of a  Soviet-made film about  Tsiolkovsky, the Russian
rocket pioneer,  and that the movie is  showing in a theater in  New York.
Would any NY area net users care to elucidate for us provincials?  If this
film exists, can we have a review? If it's worth seeing, I'd like the name
of the distributor, so we can get it out here.
  From the injun-filled rain forests of Oregon...
Keith Lofstrom
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

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

Date: 8 Dec 82 10:39:10-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rocheste!emil at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: asteroid mining
Article-I.D.: rocheste.301
In-Reply-To: Article tekcad.295
Via:  Usenet; 8 Dec 82 22:26-PST

The most likely way of asteriod mining is using a mass driver on an
asteroid/moon to propel material into earth orbit for satellite construction,
 etc.  Another method is to return with a nice sized asteroid by either 
ion/mass driver/etc.  propulsion. 

Emil

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

Date: 8 Dec 82 23:31:31-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!faunt (Doug) at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Spacesickness
Article-I.D.: hplabs.1033
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4743
Via:  Usenet; 9 Dec 82 1:24-PST

The new AW+ST has an article that says that DOD is worried about astronauts
ability to perform tasks shortly after launch, and that NASA is saying that
it has been blown up out of proportion.  The astronauts are feeling defensive
about the issue, and it has affected morale.  There are also Privacy Act implictions in releasing medical information.

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

Date: 8 Dec 82 21:42:02-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rocheste!emil at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re:Foam metal delivery
Article-I.D.: rocheste.303
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4720
Via:  Usenet; 9 Dec 82 1:40-PST

   Hate to put a damper on foamed metals, but ...

According to Curtis Watts, an aerospace/materials technology comsultant,
("Space Factories a Long Way Off", High Technology Nov/Dec 82 pg. 23), 
"tests showed that metals solidified in space form imperfect spheres that would have to be ground for use as ball bearings; the process is better done on 
earth. Similarly, metal foamed in space proved to be *nonuniform* ."

Areas that still show great promise include:

*  Continuous flow electrophoresis (to obtain highly pure pharmaceutical 
                                    products)

*  Single crystal devices for electronics or electro-optics from silicon,
   gallium arsenide, mercury cadmium telluride, and other compounds.

*  Exotic glasses for high-index-of-refraction lenses, fiber optics, & lasers.

*  Composites for high-strength magnets, and other novel or high-purity
   metals or alloys.

*  Unusually shaped parts, including high performance turbine blades.


These are just a few ideas, lets hear of others.

Emil Rainero

P.S.  Its the only way NASA will ever get to build a manned space station.

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

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

10-Dec-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #70
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 70

Today's Topics:
			  Re:Foam metal delivery
			     Electrophoresis
			       Oxygen Fires
			     re spacesickness
			  Congressional Coverage
		     Sandbags and Experimental Safety
		      Sorry all you hardware people
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 December 1982 07:38-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re:Foam metal delivery
To: hplabs!hao!seismo!rocheste!emil at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

You say metal foam can be made, just it isn't uniform? That's
encouraging, better than if it couldn't be made at all due to lack of
surface tension. How badly nonuniform is it? Bad enough to prevent use
for delivering metals to Earth by floating the foam down? (It would
seem a slight nonuniformness would merely mean the foam isn't uniform
in density, thus would be heavy on one side, and thus sink with the
heavy side downward. An extreme nonuniformness would however cause the
lightest part to be too weak to hold under stress while the heaviest
part would come crashing to Earth. Which is closer to the actual state
of nonuniformness?) Could it be made more uniform in a subsequent
experiment by bubbling it more carefully, or does it inherently push
toward a particular nonuniform state such as a gradient of density
from the center to the outside of the mass of foam?

P.s. thanks for providing the first info about the result of the experiment.

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

Date: Thursday, 9 December 1982  10:05-EST
From: BATALI at MIT-MC
Subject: Electrophoresis

I'm extremely interested in the continuous flow electrophoresis
experiments on recent shuttle flights.  Does anyone have pointers to
journals or reports describing the results of these tests?

Also: is there any canonical place to get the latest on space industry
research? Besides AW&ST?

  BATALI@MIT-OZ

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

Date: 9 Dec 1982 8:44-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
Subject: Oxygen Fires

When the cigarette fire reaches your lips it doesn't "scald" them.
Under high enough partial pressure of oxygen (perhaps less than one
atmosphere) the human body itself will sustain combustion.  Anyone have
the exact point at which this happens?  As I recall it is a very
important consideration in using hyperbaric chambers.

An interesting aside...  I recall reading that if the partial pressure
of O2 in the Earth's atmosphere was just fractionally higher then wet
(green) wood would burn very easily, and we wouldn't have any plants.

 

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

Date: 9 Dec 1982 17:14:39-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: re spacesickness

It sounds like nobody in NASA has been keeping up with mundane medical
journals; I have seen a number of references in the past few months to the
efficacy of ginger in blocking motion sickness. The experiment involved a
really brutal twisting chair (virtually everyone who didn't get medicine,
including some who were known to be less susceptible to motion sickness,
either were sick or stopped the test before the set time had run out);
ginger (I think they used freshly powdered root, but the abstract I just
dug out was unclear) was more effective than Dramamine in preventing
sickness.

Ref: LANCET, 1 (8273). 1982., p. 655-657.

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

Date: 7 Dec 82 1:10:18-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genradbo!mitccc!jmturn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Congressional Coverage

Is provided by CSPAN, the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network. USA
Network provides sports, rock, and other such.

				Not afraid to get off the subject,
					James
RARPA: RG.JMTURN@MIT-MC

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

Date: 8 Dec 82 9:58:17-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tektroni!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70
Subject: Sandbags and Experimental Safety

I am experimenting with a device that moves a 20 kilogram steel strip at
up to 200 m/s (eventually MUCH bigger and faster; space launch, anyone?),
and I'm looking for references on sandbag stopping power and similar
safety systems.  We have the Army Ballistics Research Lab on the net; can
anyone there suggest some papers or books?

Keith Lofstrom
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

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

Date: 9 Dec 82 8:28:57-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxt!dwv at Ucb-C70
Subject: Sorry all you hardware people

O.K. I admit that STS-1 had a software problem. My source (who I thought
was reliable) who works for NASA at KSC told me it was hardware.  See if I
ever listen to him again. Doing some independant research I found some
technical info on the problem. My heart is still in hardware despite my
present hacking.

					Not afraid to say I
					screwed up.
					Dave Vollman
					BTL IH

p. s. Maybe John Chancellor can help me debug this program I'm
working on

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

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

11-Dec-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #71
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 71

Today's Topics:
			       Oxygen Fires
		      Re: Recreational use of space
		     Re: A question concerning Sirius
			   Experimental Safety
			    Re: Spacesickness
	       Re: Forbidden Planet explosion ; 2001 flaws
				Metal foam
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 December 1982 07:17-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Oxygen Fires
To: dietz%usc-cse at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Re "if Earth had more Oxygen" -- You're mistaken. It's the plants that
made the oxygen in the first place. At first it was a toxic waste
product that quickly killed off most lifeforms (things like tetanus
for example that can't stand oxygen). Later creatures evolved
protective mechanisms, and creatures that could burn organic materials
in oxygen to produce energy evolved, for example animals.

If the plants ever made so much oxygen that their own bodies burned
up, there'd be a big fire and afterward there wouldn't be so much
free oxygen around. In fact that sort of happens now. Forest fires are
natural. When there are too many trees crowded together too tightly
and they are too dry, a fire starts and burns some of them down,
decreasing the number of easily flammable trees around. Luckily the
whole planet doesn't dry up at the same time, so these fires seldom
spread over whole continents and thus seldom cause extinctions, and
also luckily there's lots of lightning to start fires at all sorts of
randomtimes when not enough dry timber has built up to have much of a
big fire at all. Of course this negative-feedback loop could be
unstable, but fortunately it isn't in Earth's case, it nicely limits
itself to where just the driest of the plants in the driest of
climates catch fire, the rest just get eaten by bacteria when they
die, and the oxygen level stays at a reasonable level (at least we
think it's reasonable. I'm sure Tetanus would disagree).

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

Date: 6 Dec 82 9:23:07-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!orion!lime!we13!burl!rcj at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Recreational use of space

Where would "Filmed on location" come from if we didn't have jets to get
filmmakers from one place to another?  My point is, we gotta have a
reliable space station up there before we can film, paint, dance, and sing
in it.  Hell, they just very recently came up with a zero-g toilet designed
for female plumbing!!!

These things take time (and a lotta money),

Curtis Jackson	(...!floyd!burl!rcj)

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

Date: 9 Dec 82 14:21:06-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!orion!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.Pucc-H.Physics.els at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius

The way I understand it is:

      1)  The two stars formed, one a rather largish(sp?) star, the
other a smaller, but longer living, star;

      2)  Big one reaches end of lifetime, with two likely possibilities,

	    a)  becoming a red giant, the larger one's outer atmosphere
	 comes within capture range of the little one, which captures
	 enough hydrogen to be 'rejuvenated' into a B or A class star,
	 after which the former red giant collapses into a white dwarf
	 (now lacking the mass to become something more exotic)

	    b)  becoming a nova, the larger one ejects material, then
	 the rest of a) repeats.

      3)  The end result is a binary consisting of an A or B (possibly
 an O, but these don't hang around on the main sequence very long) star,
 and a white dwarf, a combo much like Sirius.

				  Hope this clears things up,
				  els[Eric Strobel]
				  pur-ee!pur-phy!els

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

Date: Friday, 10 December 1982, 08:42-EST
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at SCRC-TENEX>
Subject: Experimental Safety
To: Space at MIT-MC

    Date: 8 Dec 82 9:58:17-PST (Wed)
    To: space at Mit-Mc
    From: teklabs!tektroni!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70
    Subject: Sandbags and Experimental Safety

    I am experimenting with a device that moves a 20 kilogram steel strip at
    up to 200 m/s (eventually MUCH bigger and faster; space launch, anyone?),
    and I'm looking for references on sandbag stopping power and similar
    safety systems.  We have the Army Ballistics Research Lab on the net; can
    anyone there suggest some papers or books?

I would recommend the Pulse Field Technology Safe-T Force Field.  It
meets all OSHA standards for material objects to 60 km/s, but due to the
high-frequency pulsed nature of the field (which accounts for the low
cost), it is not suitable for sheilding radioactives.

It has an option for an energy storage bank to allow the absorbtion of
large energy pulses of low duty cycle with smaller, less expensive
heat sinks.  Thus when you begin throwing boxcars around, you will have
a clear growth path without needing to divert a small river to dissapate
the energy.

We have been using this system for two years now, with very good results.
There has been only one failure to date, when a janitor unplugged it to
plug in his vacuum cleaner.  Unfortunately, this reduced our lab and the
building next door to rubble, but the battery backup option allowed the
Safe-T Field unit to come through unscathed.

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

Date: 9 Dec 82 12:46:00-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genradbo!grkermit!garry at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Spacesickness

What about the USSR's astronauts.  Are they pursuing any studies in this
or do they just demand their "boys" (please no flames) put up with
spacesickness

			The Baer

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

Date: 8 Dec 82 13:38:33-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Forbidden Planet explosion ; 2001 flaws

2001 did have billowing gas and dust, but that was in the middle of
engine exhaust.   Aside from the straw, the major flaw in 2001 is that
they walk like they have gravity in the pod bay, when it is not part of
the rotating wheel and thus has none.

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

Date: 10 Dec 1982 1502-EST
From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ
Subject: Metal foam
To: space at MIT-MC

To complain that metal doesn't foam in space uniformly is like complaining
that dishes don't break into perfect little squares when you drop them.
Of course the first foaming experiment isn't perfect.  But what if you
extrude the stuff through orifices that inject bubbles powered by suitable
vibrators, to make perfect lattices, etc.  Along with REM, I've long felt
that foam steel would be a great building material.  I wonder how hard
people have really tried to make it here, in fact, by using more
cleverness?

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

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

12-Dec-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #72
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 72

Today's Topics:
		   Challenger ME Test Firing Scheduled
			    re: Space Sickness
			      Foamed Metals
			Re: Special effects - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 82 20:09:52-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Challenger ME Test Firing Scheduled

The three main engines of the space shuttle Challenger will be test fired
on 18 December, starting at 1100 EST.  The test firing will be the first
time all three engines in question have been fired at the same time.
There was a similar event preceding STS-1.

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

Date:     10 Dec 82 11:55-EST (Fri)
From:     Steven (Roi de Soleil)Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
To:       space at Mit-Mc
Subject:  re: Space Sickness

According to the information I have recieved, space sickness after
launches is fairly new. It really only started with the Shuttle. The
theory is that one is more likely to get motion sickness in the large and
expansive shuttle environment, than those cramped Mercury capsules. Thus,
the fix seems easier than a permenant space station (did you really think
they would put up a space station just because the astronauts get sick?)

						- steve

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

Date: Saturday, 11 December 1982, 21:14-EST
From: Stewart Cobb <HSC at MIT-MC>
Subject: Foamed Metals
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

   One of my professors here, who is into materials processing in space
(he flew a crystallization experiment aboard Skylab) discussed foamed
metals with me recently.  Apparently, the problem is that most metals
have surface tensions that are too high for foaming to work.  When you
try to make such a foam, you get loosely connected globs of metal.  High
surface tension has never been a problem on Earth -- it is masked by our
one-gee field -- so there has never really been any research on making
metals with lower surface tensions.  What you need is a detergent-analog
that won't break down at the melting point of whatever metal you're
using (probably lunar aluminum or asteroidal steel).  This constraint
rules out organic detergents, leaving alloying as the only apparent
means of reducing surface tension.  Apparently, there is no one
currently doing research into such alloys.  The aforementioned professor
offered to help me set up such a research project, and I may take him up
on it.
				Stewart Cobb
				hsc @ mit-mc

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

Date: 10 Dec 82 18:54:10-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Special effects - (nf)

I once asked Arthur C. Clarke about the errors of 2001 [over coffee one
nightat UNC-G, Greensboro, NC] and he replied that one very beAutiful
scene had to be excised from the movie--that ofthe lunar city with its
gardens and people walking around as if under 1 G.  However, as he also
pointed out, the interior shots on the moon had one G, and most people
have never noticed.

Also, fen have pointed out that you can seeStanley Kubrick's image in a
reflection from a space suit mask as the men enter the excavation around
the monolith.

Another point:  whereas a stunt man broke his back in 2001 scene inside
HAL, no astronaut has broken his/her back to date, evevn though a few
Russians suffered fatal injuries.
--arlan andrews, american bell, incorporated--indianapolis, in

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

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

13-Dec-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #73
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 73

Today's Topics:
		  Shuttle Fins Precious Metals in Mexico
		   Astronomical Misconceptions Refealed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 82 7:22:17-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Fins Precious Metals in Mexico

Infrared radio pictues taken on STS-2 have been analyzed more,
and scientists think that there may be deposits of gold, silver,
copper, lead, zinc, and other precious metals in the Baja
Californian Desert between Rossario and Bahia de los Angeles.

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

Date: 10 Dec 82 14:42:21-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekchips!marcw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Astronomical Misconceptions Refealed

I want to thank all of you who sent in your favorite astro-
nomical misconceptions, the response was great.  So great
that I hesitate to submit all the replys to the net for fear
of raising the ire of those who hate 300+ line articles.  If
there is enough interest in a complete copy of all the
responses, let me know and I will post it to the net.

Interestingly enough, there were not many duplications (you
all have different misconceptions?).  Space craft "woosh-
ing", stars moving behind a space craft and Pluto's unusual
orbit (sometimes the eighth and other times the ninth
planet) were the most commonly duplicated responses.

My thanks to Gene Spafford (spaf.gatech@UDel-Relay) for
pointing out my own intellectual chauvinism; one persons
misconception may be another persons fact.  This is under-
scored by the example of Mercury's rotation.  It was once
held as "fact" that one side of Mercury always pointed
toward the sun, it is now believed (more correctly, we hope)
that this is not the case.  It is a bit presumptuous to tag
ideas as "misconceptions" without acknowledging our own
fallibility.

James Turner (mitccc!jmturn) asked to have the "winners"
posted.  Rather than posting all the replies (for space rea-
sons noted above) I'll post *MY* favorite from each person
who replied.  The people and their "misconceptions" are
listed in the order in which their response reached me.

***********************************
David Wright (cornell!ddw)
Rockets work by pushing against the atmosphere.

***********************************
Lew Mammel, Jr.  (ihuxr!lew)
You could do a whole series of impossible appearances of the
moon.  A good one would be the moon as it appears in the
northern hemisphere (upright "face"), with penguins in the
foreground.

***********************************
Rich Amber (tektronix!rich)
Some of the "what's wrong with this picture" things I like are
things like photos printed backward in magazines that mislead
the people.  Things like a night view with half moon on western
horizon and brightly lit portion facing up (obviously
impossible).  And paintings of Saturns rings that give the
impression they're solid.

***********************************
Jeff Bradford (tektronix!tekcad!jeffb)
A mis-concept I had was that the southern cross was the
analog to the north star; i.e.  it marked the south pole.

***********************************
Roger Wells (tektronix!tekid!rogerw)
Velikovsky was a creationist [I know, this isn't astronomical,
but don't tell him.  (Well, he's dead anyway.) Amazing though,
the number of people who assume because he disagreed with
standard science, he automatically agreed with anyone else who
disagreed with standard science.  Matter of fact, evolution
plays a part in his so-called theory.]

***********************************
Phil Karn (eagle!karn)
The crescent moon with stars between the "points".

***********************************
Don Lynn (lynn.es@parc-maxc)
I have heard people express the thought that astronomers spend
their time trying to find new stars.  This is as absurd as
geologists looking for new grains of sand.  In fact, the
numbers show it is worse.  The real searches are for stars or
groups of stars with distinctive properties (the observational
astronomers), or for theories that explain such properties (the
theoretical astronomers).

***********************************
Steve Strassmann (straz@mit-oz@mit-mc)
Measuring the distance to stars by timing round-trip reflection
of light off of the star's surface (one friend of mine, a
respected tailor, thought "they" use sonar!)

***********************************
James Turner (decvax!genradbolton!mitccc!jmturn)
I would have to say my favorite piece of knowledge "everyone
knows" is the 'fact' that Pluto is the ninth planet from the
sun.  Of course, the right way to phrase this is really "Pluto
is *usually* the ninth planet from the sun..."


When I handed the collection of responses over to the plane-
tarium folks, they informed that, while production of the
show is being started now, it takes a long time to write the
script, research and film the graphics, produce the sound
track, develop the special effects and so on.  Thus the show
is not scheduled for performance until early next spring.
So, if anyone out there didn't get a chance to submit their
favorite "misconceptions", feel free to do so, it may still
be possible to incorporate them into the show.

Thanks again to all who responded,
					Marc Wells

via uucp:    ...!{dec | ucb}vax!teklabs!marcw
via CSNET:   teklabs!marcw@tek
via ARPAnet: teklabs!marcw.tek@rand-relay

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

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

15-Dec-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #74
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 74

Today's Topics:
				 Geminids
			 Earliest space sickness
			Article on shuttle flights
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 82 8:38:34-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Geminids

	I was out observing the evening of dec 11-12. Besides getting
turned into a popsicle I  noticed that the Geminids were active, with
counts of about 10 per hour. This was two days before the peak which
should be the morning of the 14th at 7 A.M. EST, judging from the count
I saw on Sat, a peak rate of 40-50 meteors per hour is not
unreasonable. So if you live in a reasonably dark sky area, getting
up an hour or two before work tomorrow morning will probably give 
you quite an active meteor shower.

			Fred BTL/ABI INDY

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

Date: 13 December 1982 1008-EST (Monday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: Earliest space sickness

The first space-sick astro/cosmonaut was Gherman Titov, who did 17 orbits
in Vostok 2 in 1961.  When the Russians disclosed that several of their
cosmonauts had been space-sick, it was widely interpreted here as a sign
of superior training that the American astronauts did not get sick.  But
when we got the larger Apollo, our astronauts started getting sick, too.
Two of the Apollo 8 astronauts (Borman/Lovell/Anders) got sick.  They
didn't tell mission control about it until the problem was over, because
they didn't want to be called back.

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

Date: 13 Dec 1982 0600-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: Article on shuttle flights
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]13-Dec-82 06:00:55.WMARTIN>

Readers of this list may well be interested in an article in the
Nov.  8, 1982 issue of the NEW YORKER magazine, page 128,
entitled "Letter from the Space Center".  It is one of those
typical NEW YORKER descriptive pieces but it has lots of detail
info on the shuttle flights which I haven't seen anywhere else.

Will Martin

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

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

16-Dec-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #75
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 75

Today's Topics:
		       Intensity of Space Sickness?
			 Dr. Forward in the News
		       Saturn V staging film query
		     Re: A question concerning Sirius
     re: Astronomical misconceptions - the moon's "upright" face.    
		     Greetings from space anniversary
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Dec 1982 08:14 PST
From: DMRussell at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Intensity of Space Sickness?
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: DMRussell.PA@PARC-MAXC

Does anyone have a feel for "how sick" space sickness makes you feel?  If it's
anything like seasickness, I'm not sure I'd want to be in the same shuttle with
someone who has space sickness, let alone trusting them to pilot the thing
around.  Is it as intense as ordinary, land-based motion problems? Or is it just
feeling queasy?  

Also, why did the problem (apparently) first surface in American astronauts
when they moved into larger ships?  An educated guess would say that  you
can't get sick when packed like a sardine into a Gemini or Mercury, but that the
free space of Apollo or Soyez allows your hard-wired inertial guidance to get
confused from so much visual motion uncoordinated with your own.  Or was it
just that the early flights weren't long enough for the adrenelin "high" to have
worn off?  

-- DM Russell --

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

Date: 15 Dec 1982 14:12-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
Subject: Dr. Forward in the News
To: space@mit-mc

The following article appeared in New Scientist (Dec. 2, 1982, page 563):

"How to flatten spacetime"

The general assumption that an object in orbit around the Earth
experiences zero gravitational forces is not quite true.  The orbital
motion precisely cancels the Earth's gravitational force only at the
object's centre of mass.  At other points, there is a small residual
gravitational field know as the gravity gradient tide, which arises
from the gradual decrease of the Earth's gravitational force as
distance from the planet increases.  Such forces can produce a force of
1.0E-7 m/sec^2, or 1.0E-8 of the force generated by the Earth's
gravitational field at sea level, at points only 3 cm from the
sattelite's centre of mass, according to Robert L. Forward of the
Hughes Research Laboratories in Malibu, California.  In addition, the
mass of the object also produces its own gravitational field, producing
a "self gravity" of comparable magnitude.

These residual effects could make it impossible to achieve the perfect
"zero gravity" environment envisioned for space-based experiments on
gravitational measurements or materials processing.  In practice,
residual forces are far above the theoretical minima, particularly in
manned spacecraft.  Forward points out that "a sneeze by a crewmember
in a 100-tonne spacecraft will induce an acceleration of 1.0E-3m/sec^2,
or 1/10,000 of the force of gravity at the Earth's surface.  Manned
spacecraft thus probably will not be suitable for experiments requiring
extremely low residual gravity.  However, in a paper in @i(Physical
Review D) (vol. 26, p. 735) Forward proposes ways to reduce residual
effects in small volumes by as much as a factor or 1000 below what
would otherwise be the theoretical minimum in unmanned craft.

To reduce gravity-gradient tides, says Forward, a ring of mass would be
ideal, but from the practical standpoint, though, it is sufficient to
use six spheres in a ring that has a plane perpendicular to a line from
the central object to the centre of the Earth.  Six 100-kg spheres
would produce a counter-tide that could reduce tidal accelerations by a
factor of 100.  The affected volume would increase with distance from
the Earth, from the size of a box of bath powder in near-Earth orbit
(about 100 km altitude) to the size of a birthday cake (30 cm in
diameter and 20 cm thick) in geosynchronous orbit at 23000 km.  Forward
developed the "gravity-gradient-compensator" for a science-fiction
novel he wrote, @i(Dragon's Egg), which was first published in 1980.
He needed the gravity-tide cancelling ring to let humans approach
within 400 km of a neutron star, inhabited in the novel by a
rapidly-evolving life-form.  Without the compensation, the gravity-tide
forces close to the neutron star would have been enough literally to
tear the people apart.

In his paper in @i(Physical Review), Forward also proposes a different
approach to reducing self-gravity.  For a disc shaped object, external
guard rings and guard caps could smooth out edge effects, the object
could be rotated, and two exterior massive spheres cuold serve to lower
the gravitational forces inside the disc.  In one example, Forward
calculates that self-gravity should be reduced by a factor of 2000.

Any practical applications of the proposals are likely to be 15 or 20
years away.  Gravitational fields a millionth or less than that of the
Earth should already be possible in free-orbiting unmanned sattelites,
and these are low enough for the first experiments in growing materials
and producing pharmaceuticals.  However, Forward feels certain that
demands for higher-quality materials will eventually lead to a need for
reducing gravitational fields below the natural levels.

>From a theoretical standpoint, gravitational forces are the physical
manifestation of the curvature of spacetime, induced by the mass of
objects such as the Earth.  Thus reducing gravitational forces is
tantamount to flattening spacetime, and Forward concludes: "One would
think  that there would be a good scientific use for a chunk of flat
space the size of a hatbox, but except for gravitational clock
experiment, I have not thought of one [yet]."

 

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

Date: 15 Dec 82 0:43:29-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Saturn V staging film query

Here's a trivia question I've wondered about occasionally.

Virtually everybody has seen that classic film footage taken looking back from
the bottom of the second stage of a Saturn V as the first stage falls
away, followed by the interstage adapter ring.  From the quality of the image
(it's shown in the movie "To Fly"), it's obvious that it was film, and not
video.  My question is, how did they get the camera back?  From what
I've read about the Saturn V, the launcher was practically in orbit at
second stage separation and I'm sure that the second stage would burn up
upon re-entering.

Any ideas?

Phil Karn

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

Date: 12 Dec 82 17:34:48-PST (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius

	Thanks, Eric.  Your reply does clear things up a lot.  However,
it adds fascinating new questions.
	We know that Jupiter almost became a star: it sill radiates more heat
than it receives from the sun.  When the sun goes into the red giant stage,
is it possible that Jupiter could borrow enough mass from the sun to become
a G or K star with a companion white dwarf (remnants of the sun)?  Or would
Jupiter's orbit be enclosed by the red giant?  If it would, is there any chance
that Saturn could pull that sort of trick?
	If so, and if we can move the Earth when the Sun goes into the Red
Giant stage, then the Earth might outlive the Sun (at that point, of course,
our interest in the Earth is likely simply to be a museum of the past, but
we might still want to save it).
					Rick.

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

Date: 15 Dec 1982 2047-PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF at SU-AI>
Subject: re: Astronomical misconceptions - the moon's "upright" face.    
To:   ihuxr!lew at UCB-C70
CC:   space at MIT-MC, RSF at SU-AI

	The full moon resembles a "face" even in the southern hemisphere -
in fact, the face of a man with a moustache! It turns out that one of the
"northern hemisphere eyes" becomes the "southern hemisphere mouth" and
vice versa. Try it some night by turning your head upside down and looking
at the moon. Better still, make a trip down to the southern hemisphere -
after all, it is summer there now!

		Ross.

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

Date: 15 Dec 1982 2107-PST
From: Bud Spurgeon <SPURGEON at SUMEX-AIM>
Subject: Greetings from space anniversary
To: space at MIT-MC

	While idly looking through a compendium of events I happened
across the following;

	"Christmas Greetings From Space Anniversary Dec. 19

	At 3:15 p.m. E.D.T., Dec 19, 1958, the U.S. Earth satellite, Atlas,
began first radio voice broadcast from space, a 58-word recorded Christmas
greeting from president Dwight D. Eisenhower 'to all mankind America's wish
for peace on earth and good will toward men everywhere.' Satellite had been
launched from Cape Canaveral on previous day."
	-from "Chases' Calendar of Annual Events"

	We've come a long way since then!
		-Bud
-------

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

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

17-Dec-82  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #76
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 76

Today's Topics:
			      Saturn V film
			      Geminid Report
			 Dr. Forward in the News
		     Re: A question concerning Sirius
		     Re: A question concerning Sirius
			space endurance record set
			   Newsweek flaming   
			 The Blivit in the B-Ring
			    Observation Report
			 Asteroid Mining results
			 The Thing in the Rings  
		    Skylab book, space sickness - (nf)
		     Re: A question concerning Sirius
			  Viking I Contact Lost
		       Re: Dr. Forward in the News
			    Color of the moon?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 1982 0943-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Saturn V film
To: space at MIT-MC

	NASA has always festooned manned space vechiles with cameras  to
record almost  anything  of  interest.  The  entire  launch  complex  is
covered with TV cameras, every catwalk and blast pit.  Some of the  more
spectacular pictures of the Apollo program came from those cameras.   My
favorites were the one UNDER the main engines, so you could watch  those
beasts fire up  (and disintegrate  the camera) and  at the  base of  the
mobile launcher (watching those HUGE hold down arms snap back).

        The launch vechiles were outfitted with special film cameras  to
record important events.  These cameras are then released (in this case,
soon after the  first stage  seperation). Since  the Saturn  V was  only
about 20-30 miles  up (past most  of the atmosphere),  but far short  of
orbital velocity, the  cameras splashed  into the  Eastern Atlantic  and
floated there waiting to be recovered.

	On the last shuttle flight, one  of the networks showed a  brief
NASA film clip of the external tank seperation taken by a camera in  the
orbiter (from a previous flight).  That camera stayed with Columbia  and
was removed after the orbiter's return to Earth.
-------

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

Date: 14 Dec 82 8:24:16-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Geminid Report
Article-I.D.: inuxc.553
Via:  Usenet; 15 Dec 82 19:43-PST

		Geminids Meteors

	I managed to drag myself out of bed and watch part of the
shower this morning.From 3 A.M. EST to 3:20 I counted 19 meteors,
then some high cloud cover moved in and cut the count down to about
10 for the next hour after that the skies in light-polluted
Indianapolis cleared off  somewhat and the count was up to 20 for the
30 min from 4:30 to 5 AM at which time I decided to pack it in.
	Observations: While this was the most active shower I have seen
the meteors were all pretty slow moving with only a few leaving
trails. The shower had a mix of colors from green to yellow to red 
with few of the brilliant white or blue white meteors of other
showers such as the Persuids.
	Thats all I can think of right now, I need to find something
to wake me up and pray that nothing important happens this morning.
Please excuse any grammar etc......

				Fred BTL/ABI INDY

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

Date: 16 December 1982 12:03-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Dr. Forward in the News
To: dietz%usc-cse at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

At the start of that article Mr. Forward is beating a dead horse. Not
even network newscasters are referring to the STS environment as
"zero-gee" now. They're referring to it as "micro-gravity". This is
one case where Jules Bergman et al were one step ahead of yours truly!
(I.e. now "everybody knows there's no such as zero gravity.")

Mr. Forward is saying microgravity isn't enough, nanogravity is
needed. Well, for many experiments microgravity is quite sufficient.
When it isn't, his ideas for achieving nanogravity are interesting.
But I'd prefer developing SEPS so we can go to deep space where
nanogravity is the default rather than trying to cancel curvature in
LEO. Also in deep space you can cancel nano-gravity to achieve
pico-gravity if you have instruments able to measure the nano-gravity
and algorithms&computers to compute the placement of the masses to cancel it.

<Opinion by REM, a lay scientist, not professional in this area.>

FROM:37'28N122'08W415-323-0720, about 3 miles from Stanford

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

Date: 16 December 1982 12:20-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius
To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Oh boy, you've repeated the fallacy I've heard so many times I've just
got to reply!
    We know that Jupiter almost became a star: it still radiates more heat
    than it receives from the sun.

What do you mean by "heat"?

If you mean infrared: No, Jupiter emits microwave, not infrared,
mostly. Same with any other planet.

If you mean thermal convection: Obviously not, it's surrounded by a vacuum.

That leaves "total radiant energy", which is what I always assume
you-all mean when you make this claim. But I claim every planet, Earth
et al, does the same, radiates more energy than it receives.

A planet receives mostly near-infrared and some visible light (Sun is
radiating blackbody at somewhee around 5000K with minor absorbtion
lines that don't significantly affect things and minor X-ray and other
emissions that are almost as insignificant), and depending on its
temperature a planet re-radiates, mostly in microwave with some deep
infrared, every Joule of energy it receives, plus a little extra it
generates internally from radioactive decay and gravitational
collapse, plus a little more as its insides gradually cool towards the
surface temperature. Thus every planet emits a teensy more energy than
it receives. The same is true of just about every massive object in
the universe. Deep space absorbs all this waste heat, and would get
hotter over the billions of years if the Universe weren't expanding so fast.

What you-all really mean to say is that Jupiter gives off more than
twice as much heat as it receives, i.e. its internal source of heat
(gravitational collapse and cooling of interior mostly) is more than
its external source of heat, so that its radiated energy is more due
to internal than external sources. Equivalently its personal
contribution to radiated energy is greater than what it receives from
the Sun. This is a significant statement that I'e never heard stated
correctly by anyone who could make that statement with authority. (It
may even be false! How am I to know??) But the statement you made
(quoted above) and that I've heard elsewhere, is a triviality that is
literally true of Earth et all, even the Moon!

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

Date: 16 December 1982 12:35-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius
To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC, koolish at BBN-UNIX

    Date: 12 Dec 82 17:34:48-PST (Sun)
    From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
    When the sun goes into the red giant stage, is it possible that
    Jupiter could borrow enough mass from the sun to become a G or K
    star with a companion white dwarf (remnants of the sun)?  Or would 
    Jupiter's orbit be enclosed by the red giant?
What I heard/read was that the Sun's red-giant stage would about reach
the orbit of Mars, maybe a little further. I doubt Jupiter could yank
gas from such a distance, and the solar wind would be rushing by so
fast and Jupiter would be such a small target I doubt much gas would
be collected by Jupiter. Perhaps Pournelle or Koolish has more info
about current theories of stellar evolution as applied to Sun.
    If so, and if we can move the Earth when the Sun goes into the Red
    Giant stage, then the Earth might outlive the Sun ...
As the Sun expands we'll have to gradually move the Earth away or else
put a shade "tree" between Earth and Sun. Eventually we'll have to
move or totally-shield the Earth if we want to preserve it as a
historical landmark. (Gee, literally a little chunk of land in the
vastness of Dyson spheres and space-mobile homes and recreational
space-vehicles and solar-wind sailboats and Bussard ramjets etc.)
We may want to move Venus much earlier to let it cool off so we can
make manned landings on it to learn its geology and to experiment with
its climate.) Adding to its orbital energy by tugging an asteroid just
ahead of it in orbit would seem to be a way to move it out without
physically stressing it too much. A slight continuous accelleration
over a million years ought to do the trick in very-plenty of time
before the Sun's nova stage 5-10 billion years hence.

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

Date: 16 December 1982 12:45-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: space endurance record set
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Nobody reported it here yet so I might as well: A few days ago the
Russian cosmonauts came down after being up for over 200 days to set a
new manned-space endurance record. No details here, my memory is sketchy.

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

Date: 16 Dec 1982 1103-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Newsweek flaming   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

This weeks issue of Newsweek contains a column (My Turn, in the front)
that is pretty flamingly anti-space.  It is a pretty classic argument:
*Obviously* there is no such thing as extraterrestrial life, and anyone
who says there is is indulging in "a comic-strip view of the universe".
He then goes on to say that since there is no intelligent life in the
universe, wouldn't all those millions that we are spending on SETI be
better spent making the Earth a better place to live.

The worst part about this guy is that his one-paragraph biography at
the end of the piece lists him as: "a scientist who has worked on Apollo
and other space shots", thus giving him some measure of credibility.

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

Date: 14 Dec 82 15:35:35-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver at Ucb-C70
Subject: The Blivit in the B-Ring
Article-I.D.: csu-cs.1921
Via:  Usenet; 16 Dec 82 3:38-PST

Does anyone have further information (or conjecture) on the radio
source apparently in the B-Ring of Saturn?  See Richard Hoagland's
two-part article in the 8212 and 8301 issues of Analog.  It seems
there's a weird, inexplicable source of broadband emissions that
correlates with a narrow gap in the rings, discovered by the
Voyagers.

					Alan Silverstein
					Hewlett-Packard
					Engineering Systems Division

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

Date: 14 Dec 82 11:27:18-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Observation Report
Article-I.D.: inuxa.175
Via:  Usenet; 16 Dec 82 3:19-PST

Location: 8417 Christiana Ln, Indianapolis Ind.
Conditions: Very good
Time of observation: 9:00 - 9:45 pm EST

Objects observed: M35,36,37,38,42

Three meteors from the Geminid shower were also sighted. Two of them were
fairly dim with no tail approx. magnitude 4.0. The third was approx. mag.
of 0.0 white in color and covered about 15 degrees across the sky. I would
have tried to see more of the shower but I was very tired and cold!

Also a magnitude estimate was attempted of the variable star:

			S Aurigae  color 6.7, period 578d
			designation 052034

However, I had difficulty in locating the star field and could not be
absolutely certain I could identify the variable. Therefore, no magnitude
estimate was attempted. I believe this star is at a minimum in it's cycle,
approx. magnitude 11, thereby making identification of it among several
dim stars very difficult.


					Ron Meyer
					inuxa!rrm  Bell labs, Indy
					Secretary Indiana Astro. Society

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

Date: 15 Dec 82 16:17:01-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!rjs at Ucb-C70
Subject: Asteroid Mining results
Article-I.D.: floyd.964
Via:  Usenet; 16 Dec 82 3:48-PST

Many thanks to all who answered my question about the safe return to
earth of metals mined in space.  As promised, here is a summary of
responses.  I have not included information supplied directly to the
net, just that which was mailed to me.

3 of the 5 respondants thought that bringing the metals to
the earth's surface was not the most economical thing to do, and one
of the others thought that only relatively rare metals such as platinum
should be broght to earth.  The favored alternative was to use the
metals for construction in space, either of things to be used in
space (space stations, etc.) or finished products to be space shuttled
down to earth.  Using metals mined in space to create things to be used
in space is considered economical because of the large cost of boosting
metal into space from the earth.

If metals are to be brought to the earth, two major methods were discussed.
2 respondants suggested building a large, simple (no engine) shuttle out
of some of the metal to be used to glide the rest of the metal down to earth.
2 respondants suggested melting a big glob of metal and injecting air
to make it foam (or make it foam without air to create cells surrounding
vacuum).  The idea is to get the density down low enough
that it floats on water or lower atmosphere, then drop it down to earth.
The concept of foam steel (or other metal) has been discussed on the net
since my submission.

The following references were provided for further reading:

	The NASA summer studies
	Toward Distant Suns by T.A. Heppenheimer
	The Third Industrial Revolution by G. Harry Stine
	The Fertile Stars by Brian O'Leary

I will not exist netwise till Jan 3, 1983 (vacation and all), so sending
further mail to me will probably not be productive.

	Robert Snyder
	floyd!rjs

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

Date: 16 Dec 1982 1436-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: The Thing in the Rings  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I talked with Hoagland at Baycon a few weeks ago, and he says that
the data from the Stanford radiotelescope is still being analyzed.
They plan to use the Very Large Array soon, and he spoke of a television
special sometime early next year.

For those of you that have not read the Analog article, the story is this:
One of the Voyager experiments heard a series of radio-energy bursts as
it approached Saturn.  These bursts were very broad banded (i.e. they
seemed to be present no matter what frequency the Voyager reciever was
listening to) and found to be periodic.  The calculated period was 
approximately 10 hours 10 minutes.  That fact, plus the postulation
that the lower frequencies heard would not have been able to punch
through the Saturnian atmosphere, lead some people at JPL to conclude
that the source is in orbit in the ring plane.  Further analysis also
seems to show that there is only one object making all this noise, which
means that this thing is releasing megawatt (or even gigawatt, if the
band of transmission is much greater than the band of the Voyager reciever)
quantities of energy into the rings occasionally (on the order of hours).

Further confirmation was sought.  The Voyager Photopolarimetry experiment
data was checked (This is the experiment where the light from Delta Scorpii
was measured as it passed behind the rings, to determine thickness).  
The PPS found a football stadium sized gap in the B ring, smack in the center
of a 3000 mile wide "solid" (no light got through) band.  Resonances with
the known moons do not account for the gap (There are gaps that are
caused by each of the moons).  The period of an object in this gap
would be 10 hours 9 minutes and 50 some odd seconds.  

There is quite a bit of speculation as to what the "thing" is.  One
favorite of Hoagland's is a Primordial Black Hole (PBH).  The model
in that case would be a black hole that has cleared a space in the
rings, or possibly caused the rings to begin with, by repeatedly
bashing into a moonlet.  It would be nourished by occasionally 
sucking in ring material, so that it would not evaporate (a la Stephen
Hawking and his fuzzy black holes).  One feature of this explanation
is that it might explain the braided rings.  If a PBH is releasing
massive quantities of energy into the rings, it must be boosting a
large number of particles into a higher orbit, or even past Saturn
escape velocity.  If this is so, then there is a "wind" blowing
away from Saturn in the ring plane, making the braids form for purely
aerodynamic reasons.  Another interesting feature is this: if we have
found a PBH in our own back yard, chances are, they are fairly common.
This would explain the missing mass in the universe necessary to account
for the Big Bang.

Other explanations (he spent much less time on these, so I don't have
as much info) might be a metal moonlet that occasionally short circuits
the two big semi-solid rings, which would act like a giant capacitor.
A magnetic monopole.  Or...... an artifact.

If you wanted to attract somebodies attention, one way to do it might
be to make a ring around a big planet.  And put a noisy radio source
in the ring.  One thing that Voyager observed was that the signals
were broadbanded and randomly polarized as it approached, but narrow
banded and circularly polarized as it left.  If you wanted to make
a space beacon that would attract attention even if you didn't know
that you should be listening for it, alternating between those two modes
would be a pretty good design.

Another point that Hoagland mentions is that some of the Voyager evidence
(I don't remember which as I don't have the article handy)  points to
the fact that the rings are relatively new, on the order of only 100 million
years.  And that they are being dissipated, and have only some millions of
years left.  They are not stable, as we once thought they were.

One final thought: (mine, not his)  UC Berkeley prof Luis Alvarez claims
that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a giant meteor impact about 63 million
years ago.  In geologic terms this is just about the same time that Saturns
rings were formed.  And it was the death of the dinosaurs and the change in
climate that allowed the mammals of that time to evolve into us.  
Think about it. --Tom

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

Date: 16 Dec 82 12:02:53-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!everett (Everett Kaser) at Ucb-C70
Subject: Skylab book, space sickness - (nf)
Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.544
Via:  Usenet; 16 Dec 82 17:29-PST

#N:hp-pcd:8400006:000:1832
hp-pcd!everett    Dec 16 08:29:00 1982

From: Everett Kaser
      hplabs!hp-pcd

Re: space sickness

There is a very interesting book about the old Skylab missions called, I think,
'A House In Space'. I don't remember the authors name. It's a paperback that I
found in a used book store and it was probably published about 1974 or 1975
or maybe 1976. Any....way, it covers all three missions, and talks quite a bit
about the space sickness encountered (experienced ?) by the various members of
the crews (not all experienced it). It also discusses how the astronauts, upon
entering a 'room' of the skylab, would experience a few moments of disorient-
ation, then their minds would 'lock-onto' the room and establish an 'up' and
a 'down' and then everything would be fine (until another of the astronauts
would enter the room 'upside-down', and then things would get interesting
again). However, the space-sickness was usually, if at all, experienced only
for the first few hours they were in space, and then they'd be all right for
the rest of the mission.
   The second crew got into some trouble with mission control when they  
concealed the fact that one of their members had gotten sick (blew his cookies)
because mission control had a policy of keeping the crew in the command 
capsule for a day if any of the crew got sick, to give them a chance to recover
before entering the larger skylab area. (This was because the larger area made
it easier for the astronauts to become disoriented and thus get sick. However,
once their systems had gotten used to the weightlessness (undirectedness ?)
of space, then the larger volume was no problem.)
   Anyway, it's a worthwhile book. I'll try to find it at home tonight, and 
I'll post a response to this note giving the authors name.

	Not afraid to get spacesick, if they'll just give me the chance,

			Everett Kaser.

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

Date: 15 Dec 82 11:02:28-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2892
In-Reply-To: Article watmath.4019
Via:  Usenet; 16 Dec 82 18:35-PST

Question:  How much mass does Jupiter have to gain in order to be stellar
	   in mass?

Quick trip to the bookshelf.  Let's see.  The smallest known true stars are 
the two components of the binary system L 726-8 in Cetus.  They are red dwarfs 
of about 0.04 solar mass.  Jupiter is about 0.001 solar mass, so it needs to 
multiply its mass by a factor of 40.   It's possible that some other objects 
are stars, but they haven't been identified or photographed yet:

Object			 Mass (Sun = 1.0)	Comment
********		  *************		****************************
L 726-8A		      0.04		Proven star - photographed
L 726-8B		      0.04		Proven star - photographed
Companion to WZ Sagitta	      0.03		star - Uncertain mass figure
Lalande 21185		      0.03		star - Uncertain mass figure
Companion to Lalande 21185    0.01		unseen, possible star (?)
61 Cygni C		      0.008		unseen, possible star (?)
Companion to Barnard's Star   0.0015		unseen - assumed planet (?)
Jupiter			      0.001		known planet

If 61 Cygni C turns out to be a star, then Jupiter is only a factor of 8 away 
from stellar mass. 


						David Bryant
						 cbosg!djb

I suppose there must be some hard and fast value of critical mass for starhood.
Anybody out there know what the minimum recipe is for making a star?

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

Date: 16 Dec 82 7:28:59-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Viking I Contact Lost
Article-I.D.: alice.1307
Via:  Usenet; 16 Dec 82 21:28-PST

Scientists at JPL have lost contact with the Viking I lander, the
last surviving component of the Viking program.  They think that
the problem is merely an out of line antenna that should be able
to be fixed and feel certain that the ship itself it alright.

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

Date: 16 Dec 82 13:20:01-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Dr. Forward in the News
Article-I.D.: eagle.693
In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4844
Via:  Usenet; 16 Dec 82 22:37-PST

There's one additional factor that disturbs the low gravity environment,
at least aboard the shuttle: thruster firing.  When the orbiter is
commanded to hold a particular attitude, thruster firing can be quite
frequent in order to counteract the orbiter's tendency to orient itself
along the local gravity-gradient.  Free-flying payloads, such as the
Long Term Exposure facility, will probably be much better for
experiments requiring minimal accelerations.

Phil Karn

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

Date: 16 Dec 82 18:56:07-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Color of the moon?
Article-I.D.: eagle.695
Via:  Usenet; 16 Dec 82 23:16-PST

The color of the moon's surface seems to vary quite a bit among the
various photographs taken on the surface by the Apollo crews.  In some,
it appears dark grey, with no color, while in others it is a golden
brown.  Is this a true variation, or is it attributable to film,
printing, sun angles, etc?

Phil

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

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

18-Dec-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #77
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:
			OTRAG fate and Cannonfire.
			     Curious Anomaly.
	 Multiple-telescope telescopes, and blurring of starlight
			   Re: Newsweek Flaming
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 1982 1821-EST
From: BIESEL at RUTGERS
Subject: OTRAG fate and Cannonfire.
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: biesel at RUTGERS


Does anyone know what happened to OTRAG, the german firm that was going
to build cheap launch vehicles, using windshield wiper motors for pumps,
and other cost-saving features? Last I heard, they had to move from
Central Africa, for mysterious reasons.

While I'm asking for obscure info: I recall a scheme some years ago for
using a cannon to fire an object into orbit (or at least supplying a
major part of the kinetic and potential energy for orbital insertion
of a small rocket). Does anyone know the fate of this project, or any
reasons (other than the obvious technical problems of acceleration, and
pressure) why this cannot work?

	Pete.

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

Date: 17 Dec 1982 1843-EST
From: BIESEL at RUTGERS
Subject: Curious Anomaly.
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: biesel at RUTGERS


I've recently read a book on the US astronaut program which listed the
names, and dates of appointment, for all astronauts, up through the first
shuttle personnell. Among the Mercury 7, four were either Jr.'s or
Joe Blow II or III. This preponderance of male children named after their
father continued throughout the Gemini and Apollo programs, albeit with
reduced incidence. A random, and very unscientific sample of names from
the phonebook showed that the incidence of Jr.'s among the astronaut corps
up until the the Shuttle crews was many times the incidence among the
average population.
I can imagine several psychological theories, based upon achievement
orientation, desire to outdo the old man/make a name for oneself, but none
would seem to account for the really striking incidence of Jr.'s.
Any guesses?
	Pete.

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

Date: 17-Dec-82 18:11:46 PST (Friday)
From: Wedekind.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Multiple-telescope telescopes, and blurring of starlight
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

two questions-

1) Something tells me this was covered at one point but I can't remember
details:  Are there practical ways to combine CCD-gathered data from
synchronized observations at multiple unrelated existing optical
telescopes and come away with increased image resolution or other good
things?


2) How much does the atmosphere blur a star's light?  Hmm, better be more
precise: Let's say we're at an observatory site and the seeing is good.
There is only one star in the sky, at zenith.  How much light/square
radian do we see, as a function of angle from zenith?  If the value at 0
radians is 1, any idea what the value is at 15 radians?  Integrate the
light over a minute or two of time so twinkling doesn't figure in.  Ignore
interstellar dust, and no, the star isn't Betelguese!

						Jerry

[P.S. My earlier msg (blurring of starlight) refers to an angle of 15 radians
from zenith.  I meant degrees.	-Jerry]

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

Date: 17 Dec 1982 2038-PST
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Re: Newsweek Flaming
To: taw at S1-A
cc: space at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

Perhaps  it's fortunate that Newsweek puts the biography at the end of
the article.  Maybe a lot of people did as I did  --  started  reading
the  piece, decided it was a bunch of _____, and flipped over to other
articles without  discovering  that  the  writer  had  a  "measure  of
credibility".  Let's hope so.

Dennis

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

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

19-Dec-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #78
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 78

Today's Topics:
			 The Blivit in the B-Ring
	    The Thing in the Rings & the Cretaceous Extinction
		     Re: A question concerning Sirius
			  Viking I Contact Lost
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 December 1982 21:59-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: The Blivit in the B-Ring
To: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

What exactly does the spectrum look like, blackbody at thermal
temperatures, or low-energy synchotron, or what? It may just be a hot
spot where two intersecting rings bump into each other creating
thermal energy. Not enough bumping to destroy the rings quickly, but
enough for the energy of gradual destruction to be detectable. Anyway,
that's my first guess. I'll be pleased if I turn out to be correct!

FROM:37'28N122'08W415-323-0720, about 3 miles from Stanford

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

Date: 18 December 1982 22:28-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: The Thing in the Rings & the Cretaceous Extinction
To: TAW at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Aha, the regularily-periodic bursting of the radio source is explained
nicely by my idea of an out-of-plane ringlet or moonlet colliding with
the rest of the material in adjoining rings, or two non-circular
ringlets or moonlets or one of each, with a burst at each orbit. It's
analagous to comets producing meteor showers that we have each year
but which produe really big showers every 33 years or whatever the
orbital period of the comet was. The ring object would wipe itself out
in 200 million years <number pulled out of my hat> but with the rings
only 65 million years old it hasn't wiped itself out yet. -- But I
really like the black-hole theory too. I guess we have to send a
Galileo-class ship there to orbit long enough to find the truth. Now
let's see, when does budget scrooge Stockman leave office?

By the way, although there's no religious significance if the comet
that wiped out the dinosaurs and thus allowed mammals to take over and
evolve humans also made a pretty ring for us to watch and do movies
about (2001, silent running), but it does explain why such a rare
event happens to have happend at the same time the rare event of the
dinosaur extinction and our development occurred. In fact I might go
so far as to speculate that whenever in the future we discover that
our solar system is the only system in the whole galaxy with some
property, that there's a direct casual link between that property and
our evolution were, either one caused the other (like if there's a
candy wrapper on the Moon but nowhere else, some astronaut probably
put it there) or some common cause was involved (one comet did both
rings of Saturn and our dinosaur extinction). Maybe the rings of
Jupiter and Uranus were also caused by that comet, just Saturn was on
the right side of the Sun. (Gee, maybe by tracing back tree rings in
fossels we can date the Cretaceous Extinction to within a few years,
then by tracing back the orbits of the planets to find when Saturn and
Earth were on one side of the Sun with Jupiter and Uranus far away, we
can get the exact month of the CE, and by checking geologic evidence
such as meteor craters and biological evidence such as where the CE
hit most strongly we can even find out what time of day it hit!! --
Yes, I'm out on a limb, but something truth is stranger than fiction!
Black holes (probably truth) are stranger than ray guns (fantasy
science fiction) for example.)

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

Date: 18 December 1982 22:53-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius
To: npois!cbosgd!djb at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

If you define a "star" to be something that glows in the night, then
Jupiter and Earth are "stars". We're microwave stars, something hotter
is an infrared star, and something yet hotter is a red star, etc. I
think we have to define a star as something that is undergoing nuclear
fusion rather than merely using gravitational collapse to convert
potential energy into knetic energy. A star big enough to undergo
nuclear fusion but which hasn't yet collapsed enough to start burning,
is a pre-star. Also a smaller object that is getting more massive due
to matter flowing from a companion, such that eventually there'll be
enough mass to start nuclear fusion, should perhaps be called a
pre-star also. Anything too small and not getting new mass to
eventually be big enough, is a non-star, i.e. a simple planet or gas cloud.

So, the question is, how much mass is needed to sustain
Hydrogen-->Helium fusion, the only kind of nuclear fusion possible
initially when a star is mostly Hydrogen? I think this has already
been figured out and published somewhere but I don't know for sure
where. Anything that we detect as an infrared source, that we measure
and find too small to be burning hydrogen, we just have to call a
non-star. If we call it a star just because it's hot enough to glow,
our definition becomes too weak, as I explained above. -- What
<should> we call it? "Non-star" is so general, as is "compact infrared
source". How about a "dar" (contraction of "Dark stAR")? We could use
that term also for former-stars that have burned their hydrogen and
helium and are now black dwarfs.

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

Date: 18 December 1982 22:55-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Viking I Contact Lost
To: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Aha, now we simply HAVE to send a rescue craft for the poor Viking!

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

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

21-Dec-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #79
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 79

Today's Topics:
			    Color of the moon
		       Jupiter almost became a star
			  cannons a first stages
			      Space sickness
	Re: Multiple-telescope telescopes & blurring of starlight
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 December 1982 1035-EST (Monday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: Color of the moon

Color film from the moon walks often (usually?) had its colors warped
because it was processed to enhance "other information."  I don't know
what that other information might be, aside from better contrast or 
finer grain.  I saw this explanation on a photo (in National Geographic,
I think) which made the moon look green.

The Apollo 8 astronauts said the moon was gray.  The Apollo 10 astronauts
said the moon was chocolate-brown.  Neither group would budge for the
other.  The Apollo 11 astronauts said OK, you're both right -- it's
brown when the sun is high overhead, and gray when the sun is lower.
(All of this came from observations from lunar orbit.)

			David Smith

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

Date:    20-Dec-82 11:10AM-EST (Mon)
From:    David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: Jupiter almost became a star
To:      Space at MIT-MC

 "We all Know that Ju[iter almost became a star"

Yes this is true, but there is a big difference between almost became, and
is  now. Jupiter had at the time of the creation of the solar system, almost
sufficient mass to ATTRACT sufficient mass from the condensing cloud of
the protostar to become a small, probably K or M type. It missed its
chance and has only about 2% percent of that needed to start Hydrogen
burning, (most people's definition of a real start).
						--Dave

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

From: DP@MIT-ML
Date: 12/20/82 12:24:15
Subject: cannons a first stages

 Sometime in the 50's the army got a small sounding rocket up
to a fairly high altitude by firing it from a 16" cannon on a battleship.

 This was used as a prop device in a SF story called "The Sword Sleeps"
published in analog 2 or 3 years ago...
					enjoy,
					Jeff

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

Date: 20 December 1982 1406-EST (Monday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30)
To: DMRussell.PA at parc-maxc
Subject: Space sickness

	Or was it just that the early flights weren't long
	enough for the adrenalin "high" to have worn off?
			- D M Russell

Gordon Cooper was in space for 34 hours in a Mercury capsule in 1963.
Did his adrenalin "high" wear off?  Well, he took a catnap on the launch
pad, and slept during the flight.

I believe that the 14-day Gemini 7 flight (December 1965) lasted longer
than any Apollo until Skylab.  It certainly lasted longer than any
Shuttle flight to date.

Here's an excerpt from an article in Aviation Week, 6 Dec. 82, p.28:

	The Mission 5 crew last week [in a press conference] did not
	comment on controversial issues surrounding the way their
	medical status was handled by managers.  They did say, however,
	that their condition in space was better than they heard it was
	when they returned to Earth.

	Both astronauts William B. Lenoir and Marine Col. Robert F.
	Overmyer experienced some vomiting in their adapting to zero-g
	[Apologies to Robert Forward].  Neither said they [sic]
	felt ill as a person does on Earth when motion sick, and the
	earliest symptoms did not occur until 11 hours into the flight.
	Lenoir described the symptoms as coming on quickly and being
	more like "a wet belch."  

	"I have a tendency to think it was overrated and overreacted
	to down here," Lenoir said.  "In fact we weren't feeling all
	that bad.  We never missed a beat, we got all of our work done."


David Smith

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

Date: 20-Dec-82 12:29:00 PST (Monday)
From: Lynn.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Multiple-telescope telescopes & blurring of starlight

1) When they combine radio telescope observations interferometrically, 
they use recordings of the radio waves themselves (not just their amplitude), 
and must have a time base accurate to a fraction of a wave.  I don't think we 
have the capability to do that with such high frequencies as light.  Optical 
fiber transmission of the light for optically combining the signals as 
received (rather than later from a recording) might work.

2) I have never seen figures for blurring as a function of zenith angle, 
but I would assume it would be roughly proportional to the amount of air 
through which the light traveled.  In that case, it is the same formula as 
for dimming of light through the atmosphere, which is closely approximated 
by the secant of the zenith angle, at least down to a few degrees from the 
horizon.  Thus at 60 degree zenith angle, we would get twice the blurring 
as directly overhead (probably twice in terms of area, though you could build 
a case for twice the linear dimensions).  Blurring at 15 degrees would be 
1.035, or pretty negligible.

I know of two phenomena that would tend to indicate that the blurring 
would be a bit unpredictable.  One is that observatories have found that 
often the majority of blurring occurs within tens of feet of the ground.  
That is why some telescopes are mounted considerably above ground (for 
instance the 4 meter Mayall telescope's housing is about the height of a 
20 story building).  The second is that blurring varies vastly from night 
to night, or even hour to hour.  A theoretical point of light (ignoring 
the diffraction pattern, which you can for a large telescope) that actually 
occupies one second of arc due to atmospheric blurring is good, 1/4 second 
is phenomenally good, and 4 or 5 seconds is poor, but alas, not too unusual.

/Don Lynn

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

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

23-Dec-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #80
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 80

Today's Topics:
		  Blurring of Starlight, Interferometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 1982 10:31-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
Subject: Blurring of Starlight, Interferometry
To: space@mit-mc
Origin: usc-cse
Reply-To: dietz@USC-ECL
Via:  Usc-Cse; 22 Dec 82 11:36:20

An interesting fact about atmospheric blurring of starlight is that,
over short periods of time (fractions of seconds to seconds) and small
angular separations (fractions of degrees) it is highly correlated.  A
new technique is to take snapshots of the object you're viewing every,
say, 1/50 of a second.  The results can be adjusted and stacked by
computer.  I'm not sure of the details (where does phase information
go?).  This technique is called "speckle interferometry" because of the
appearance of the resulting image.  The've used this technique to
separate Pluto and Charon, and to image Betelgeuse's (sp?) stellar
disk.

 

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

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

28-Dec-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #81
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 81

Today's Topics:
				 Eclipse
		      Re: Color of the moon? - (nf)
			  Proposed mission to L5
		     car passes for Shuttle launches
				L5 Sailing
			      Re: OTRAG fate
			   We lose another    
				  Otrag
		  Re: Skylab book, space sickness - (nf)
	     The 3clipse is comming, The 3clipse is coming!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 82 8:37:55-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Eclipse
Article-I.D.: inuxc.559
Via:  Usenet; 18 Dec 82 6:02-PST

	Just a reminder of the Lunar Eclipse on
December 30, 1982. Next years Lunar eclipses will not be total
so this is your last chance to see a total lunar
eclipse for quite awhile.

	EVENT		TIME (UT) 	TIME(EST)
TOTALITY BEGINS		10:58		5:58 AM
MID-ECLIPSE		11:29		6:29 AM
TOTALITY ENDS		11:59		6:59 AM

	THIS IS THE MORNING OF DEC 30.


I'll be leaving this scene to visit relatives in THE LAND OF ICE AND
SNOW (Minn.) SO I'd like to wish a warm and happy holiday season and
a joyful new year.

					Frederick T. Mendenhall jr.

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

Date: 17 Dec 82 15:34:23-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!coletti at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Color of the moon? - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1254
Via:  Usenet; 18 Dec 82 6:43-PST

#R:eagle:-69500:uiucdcs:12700025:000:788
uiucdcs!coletti    Dec 17 14:51:00 1982

     As far as the shots from orbit are concerned, I'm afraid the problem
was that the astronauts did not always use the correct filters on their
cameras.

     Presumably various scientists (geologists (selenologists?))
wanted to measure the reflectivity of the various lunar minerals
at different points in the spectrum.  This would help determine what
minerals they were looking at.  The filters would take have taken care
of that.

(Reference:  Brian O'Leary, "Making of an Ex-Astronaut".  He attributes
the problem to using super test pilots to do a scientist's job.)

					Neil Coletti
					..!decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!coletti

P.S.:  The real color is pretty much like what the returned lunar rocks
       look like; dark-gray beach sand.  Reflectivity under 10%
       (about 4% ?).

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

Date: 23 Dec 82 13:31:40-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70
Subject: Proposed mission to L5
Article-I.D.: omsvax.271
Via:  Usenet; 25 Dec 82 9:12-PST

			Disclaimer

The following is strictly tablecloth engineering, and may be the
fevered product of too much Sczechuan Beef.  I request your best
attempts to shoot it down.  It sounds as if it should work, but I just
don't know enough about celestial mechanics, etc, to say.



			Proposal

That some space society or consortium of societies send up in the
shuttle a getaway special package which contains a probe to be sent to
one of the Lagrange points L4 or L5.  The probe would be motivated by a
light sail, and powered either by solar cells or by a SNAP battery.  It
would contain an instrument package which would study the environment
at the Lagrange points:  dust and charged particle density, magnetic
fields and solar wind, presence of large rocks, etc.

Before I get involved in the technical discussion, I want to discuss
the motives for such a probe.  It seems to me that NASA is not willing
to work seriously towards large scale space colonization or
industrialization, for fear of adverse publicity.  They are trying to
stick closely to what they view as the "mainstream" of space
development which they view as development of Earth-directed services
such as weather observation and communications in LEO.  They are hoping
that the private sector will vindicate their choice of projects by
slowly taking over the investment.  The space colony and industrialism
proponents on the other hand, are building fairly involved scenarios
for the development of space, but lack hard information on the
environment in which development will take place, because they lack the
means to explore that environment.  Conditions at the Lagrange points
including relative abundance of materials such as hydrogen and carbon,
dust density, numbers of large rocks, and precise placement relative to
the Earth's magnetopause would affect construction there.  We (I'm a
proponent of space colonization too) keep hoping that NASA will develop
projects to explore these conditions, but it seems unlikely that they
will do so in the next decade, given their current emphasis.

The idea for this probe developed from a conversation about the optimum
payload for a non-NASA, non-aerospace-corporation developed experiment
to be carried by the shuttle.  Such an experiment must be small in
order to fit into the space allotted to a getaway special,
self-contained, relatively inexpensive (assuming volunteer labor for
design and construction), and be intended to study an area which is not
likely to be studied by anyone else for awhile.  An example of such a
payload is the series of OSCAR sattellites developed by the American
Radio Relay League for relaying amateur radio signals.  NASA is
concentrating on LEO, with a few excursions to the planets, for the
next five years, and the corporations are concentrating on materials
research in LEO.  Until someone finds a need to exploit cis-lunar space
beyond geosynchronous orbit, or decides to go into space construction
beyond LEO there won't be any call for NASA or the corporations to
explore out there.  For that matter, there is not yet a reasonable way
to get large payloads beyond LEO, since the orbital tug does not yet
exist.

Rightly or wrongly, the space colonization movement has become
identified with the Lagrange points.  It's not clear that L5 is the
best place for a colony, but that's the place that people think about
when space colonies are discussed.  A probe to L5 (or L4, whichever
makes more sense from an astronautical point of view) would be an excellent
symbol of determination on the part of space colony proponents, a proof
that private exploration of space is possible, and a means of
investigating the Lagrange points to gather hard evidence on their
utility for construction sites.

On to the technical details.

The space and cost constraints seem to rule out the use of chemical
rockets to give the probe the impulse needed to get to L5.  In
addition, the engine needs to be restartable, since the probe needs to
match velocities when it reaches L5 (considerably more useful
information can be gathered with a given mass of instruments if the
probe stays at its target rather than flies by).  These considerations
favor a constant thrust engine: either an ion-engine or a sail.  An
ion-engine requires a good deal of electrical power to operate,
increasing the cost, and probably decreasing the useful payload mass.
A sail requires mechanical parts to steer, and involves a technology
which has never really been tried in space before (which in itself may
be a reason to use it).  The factor which determines a sail's
feasibility for this mission is the effective acceleration per unit
area which can be obtained, given the solar radiation pressure (and the
solar wind?) and the density of the best available sail material.  I
don't know enough to evaluate this factor, but it sounds reasonable
that a solar constant of more than a kilojoule/sq. meter would provide
enough thrust to move a total instrument/navigation package of a few
tens of kilograms at a few thousandths of a g with a rasonable size
sail.  Comments, anyone?

I envision the sail control as a set of piezoceramic benders which are
small, light, and use little power, with rachet and pawl mechanisms to
bend, move, and hold the sail in a given position relative to a
framework of plastic tubes.  The tubes could be carried in the shuttle
coiled up flat, then deployed by inflation and stiffening with an
ultraviolet-cured epoxy coating.  The curing would allow the tubes to
hold shape even if the gas used for inflation leaks away.  The keel and
navigation reference could be a weight on a wire boom, tidal-locked to
the Earth.  This would work at least out to GEO, but I don't know how
well it would work near L5.  My guess is that it would work, because at
L5 the lunar and solar tides are approximately the same as on Earth,
but the Earth's tidal effect would be greater because L5 is fewer Earth
radii from Earth than lunar radii from the moon.  A very long boom, and
possibly some sort of variable damping device, to compensate for the
change in resonant frequency with changing tidal force, might be necessary.

The payload would consist of an three parts: an astrogation package, an
instrumentation package, and a communication package.  The astrogation
package would contain some sort of sensors, a microcomputer, and the
drivers for the mechanism which controls the sail.  The instrumentation
package would contain the instrumentation for the experiments, a clock,
some sort of recorder (magnetic bubbles perhaps), and a controller for
the experiments.  The communication package would consist of a
transmitter to send recorded experimental data to Earth (this could be very
small if the NASA deep space net were used for reception on Earth), and
(optionally) a receiver for commands from Earth.  If the transmitter and
receiver were configured to operate as a transponder, they could be
used to track distance from Earth to the probe, and power consumption
on the probe could be reduced, since the transmitter would only be
operating when the receiver on Earth was ready for it.  Alternately,
tracking could be done by mounting a corner reflector on the probe, and
bouncing radar or laser beams from Earth off of it.

I can think of a few experiments off the top of my head.  Charged
particle density could be measured with a Faraday cup (or use the sail
as a collector?) and charge detector.  Dust density could be measured
with a micrometor detector, or by detecting changes in amplitude and
polarization of the radio signal returned to Earth from the probe (I
don't know what lower limit of density is detectable by this method).
The stability of the Lagrange point could be determined by measurements
of perturbations in the probe's orbit (the sail may have to be dumped
when the probe reaches L5).  The local magnetic field could be measured
with any standard magnetometer design.  Large rocks in the neighborhood
could be detected by an on-board radar, or by visual observation
through a TV camera.  If a large rock is detected, it might be possible
to maneuver alongside it for a close look.


			Conclusion:

The mission looks feasible to me, and the probe may or may not be
technically possible.  In my own area of expertise (the
instrumentation electronics and the computers) I know that what I've
described can be done simply and (relatively) cheaply,  but I am not
sure about things like the sail deployment and control, power source,
etc.  These things need to be investigated by experts in the
respective fields, many of whom, I hope, are reading this article.
I welcome net mail or articles to net.space or the ARPA space digest
either attacking or defending the feasibility of this proposal.

I think the primary benefits of this mission would not be from the
information it returned, but from the fact of its completion.  It would
prove that the technological base established by NASA in the last 20
years is now usable by groups other than governments and large
corporations, and it would prove that the space exploitation movement
has the determination and expertise to carry out the first steps in
implementing its own proposals.



			Bruce Cohen
			Intel
			USENET: ...{pur-ee,hplabs}!intelqa!omsvax!bc
			ARPA:	... hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc@UCB-C70

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

Date: 21 Dec 82 15:03:49-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver at Ucb-C70
Subject: car passes for Shuttle launches
Article-I.D.: csu-cs.1937
Via:  Usenet; 25 Dec 82 9:15-PST

After watching STS-3 from 12 miles away on the Merritt Island Causeway
(along with 500000 other bozos), I wondered if there was a BETTER WAY.
Sure enough, there is.  Write to the Public Affairs Office at Kennedy
Space Center, Florida (zip = ??) and request a CAR PASS for the shot of
your choice.  They respond in a few weeks with a postcard telling you 
if you'll get one, are on the waiting list, or what.  The pass is spozed
to get you 7 miles away, on the KSC Causeway.  Haven't tried it out yet;
I'm hoping for a good spot for STS-6.

Also, if you are or know a VIP, you can apparently get limited invites
to the viewing site on the Cape.  Anybody out there a VIP?

				Alan Silverstein
				HP ESD, Fort Collins, Col.

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

Date: 23 Dec 82 15:39:41-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!dps at Ucb-C70
Subject: L5 Sailing
Article-I.D.: omsvax.275
Via:  Usenet; 25 Dec 82 10:05-PST

Question about sailing to L5 and then matching speed with L5 and family:

Can this be done so that probe is always sailing "downwind"?  I would
imagine that a solar sail would work mainly on "push" instead of
"lift", so that the probe would be unable to "point" above a beam reach,
if that far.  (Lift on earth sails comes from a surface effect deflection,
and then apply newton: dp/dt = -ma.  If the equivalent effect exists with
the solar sail, I would expect the mass deflected to be too small to be
of practical use, and likely cancelled out by something else (gravititional
irregularities?))

It may be possible, by choosing point of launch (from LEO) appropriately.
The point I'm thinking will be trickiest is transition from travel to 
station keeping.

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

Date: 27 Dec 1982 21:26 PST
From: Gloger.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: OTRAG fate
In-reply-to: Your message of 17 Dec 1982 1821-EST
To: BIESEL at RUTGERS
cc: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, Gloger.es at Parc-maxc

I haven't seen any other response to your question on the fate of OTRAG, so I'll
pass along what I know.

OTRAG definitely was chased out of Central Africa - Zaire, I'm pretty sure it
was - about 3 years ago.  They moved to Libya.  (Libya, remember, is our
planet's foremost nation-state exponent+supporter of terrorism [as distinguished,
say, from the Soviet Union, which is the foremost supporter of terrorism while
espousing "peace."])  OTRAG said at the time that their's was strictly a business
deal with Libya, whereby they leased land for an assembly, test, and launch
facility.  They further said explicitly that the deal did not include the supplying
of rockets to Libya.  They did not, however, say why oil-cash-rich Libya would
want their money, nor did they in fact disclose anything about what Libya was
to receive in exchange for tolerating the presence of Western imperialists.

I have heard nothing more about OTRAG directly.

Two years ago, however, I heard a rumor which is so good I pass it along:  It is
an open secret (at least according to this rumor) that the Soviets were behind the
rebellion in Zaire which resulted in OTRAG's forced rapid departure from that
country.  Further, during the rebellion, Soviet-trained and -equipped Zairian
rebels were caught while apparently making their way toward the OTRAG
facility, with maps, weapons, etc., to destroy and/or capture the facility. 
Manwhile, OTRAG's arrangement with Libya does call for Libya to get working
rockets (still all according to the rumor).  And, oil-rich Libya is financing the
Pakastani nuclear bomb effort (which effort dirt-poor Pakistan is definitely
making, with some help from the U.S., in return for which help the Pakastani's
occasionally lie and claim to be making only peaceful use of nuclear energy),
this financing by Libya in return for some bombs from Pakistan to Libya.  The
combination, of course, results in Libya's possessing nuclear-tipped missiles.  End
of rumor.

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

Date: 27 Dec 1982 2356-PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at SU-AI>
Subject: We lose another    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a018  2337  27 Dec 82
BC-Swigert,170
Former Astronaut Dead of Cancer at 51
    DENVER (AP) - Rep.-elect Jack Swigert died Monday night of cancer at
the Lombardi Cancer Institute of Washington's Georgetown University,
a spokeswoman for his Washington office announced. He was 51.
    Swigert, a former Apollo 13 astronaut, was a Republican elected to
represent Colorado's new 6th Congressional District Nov. 2. He was to
have been sworn in Jan. 3.
    Before the November election, Swigert announced that his doctors had
diagnosed his condition as bone marrow cancer. The cancer later
spread to Swigert's lungs, his doctors said.
    June Weiss, his press secretary, said the immediate cause of
Swigert's death was respiratory failure.
    Swigert had been hospitalized in Washington since Dec. 19, when he
was airlifted to the Georgetown University hospital from his home in
Littleton. He was under treatment for bone marrow cancer and
complications from chemotherapy treatments.
    Ms. Weiss said Sen. William Armstrong, R-Colo., was with Swigert
when he died at 10:10 p.m.
    
ap-ny-12-28 0231EST
***************

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

Date: 28 Dec 1982 0313-EST
From: HPM at CMU-CS-C
Subject: Otrag
To: space at MIT-MC

I've lost the reference, but there was further news of Otrag in AWST
about four months ago.   Otrag is out of Libya and making arrangements
with a South American country (Brazil?).  Under pressure from the
German investors the politically controversial head of the company,
Lutz Kayser, has been ousted, and the operations have been opened to
greater outside scrutiny.  The financial position could be better.
-------

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

Date: 17 Dec 82 18:02:35-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!everett (Everett Kaser) at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Skylab book, space sickness - (nf)
Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.547
Via:  Usenet; 17 Dec 82 20:04-PST

#R:hp-pcd:8400006:hp-pcd:8400007:000:609
hp-pcd!everett    Dec 17 16:06:00 1982


From: Everett Kaser
      hplabs!hp-pcd

Due to my forgetfullness, I forgot to look up the authors name last night,
but I received the name in the mail from Paul, so I'll post his note:

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

>From ogcvax!allegra!phr Fri Dec 17 13:47:27 1982
To: hp-pcd!everett
Subject: skylab book

A House in Space is by Henry S. F. Cooper, who was (maybe still is)
a science writer for the N. Y. Times.  I can dig up more data from
my copy at home if you can't find yours.

paul

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

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

Date: 17 Dec 82 4:08:01-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxm!5941ux!kek at Ucb-C70
Subject: The 3clipse is comming, The 3clipse is coming!!
Article-I.D.: 5941ux.172
Via:  Usenet; 18 Dec 82 1:26-PST


                         * * *

Don't forget there is a total lunar eclipse on the morning of
December 30th. This will be the last total eclipse visible to
North Americans for many years. It is also the third total eclipse
this year, although one was not observable in North America.
It will be over 500 years before this particular feat is repeated.

This upcoming eclipse will not be as spectacular as the one of last
July since the moon will pass well to the north of the center of
the Earth's umbra. This will shorten totality to 66 minutes
(compared with 106 minutes for the July event - the longest since
1736 in the western hemisphere).

Observers on the East Coast will be at a disadvantage since the
moon will be setting and the sun will be rising. However, West
Coasters should find the moon high in the sky and the eclipse
will be over well before sun-up.

Approximate event times are as follows:

moon enters penumbra    8:52 (UT)
moon enters umbra       9:50
beginning of totality  10:58
mid-point of totality  11:29
end of totality        11:59
moon leaves umbra      13:07
moon leaves penumbra   14:06

HAPPY VIEWING !!

                                Ken Kepple
                                BTL Holmdel
                                5941ux!kek

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

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

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

29-Dec-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #82
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 82

Today's Topics:
			Watching a shuttle launch
	   Re: The 3clipse is comming, The 3clipse is coming!!
			   Seeing STS launches
		       A question conerning Sirius
			      Re: L5 Sailing
		       Possible Main Engine Problem
		 Halley's comet "captured" by astronomers
			  Proposed mission to L5
			    solar sail tacking
		      Probing the Lagrangian points
			      shuttle status
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 82 12:54:43-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!tektronix!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70
Subject: Watching a shuttle launch
Article-I.D.: tekcad.309
Via:  Usenet; 25 Dec 82 12:00-PST

   A space shuttle launch is one of the most exciting things you can see.
The anticipation, followed by the incredible noise and heat of liftoff are
a heady experience. Then comes thousands of people making whoopie after it
goes, with the smell of the solid boosters in the air.  Having watched the
launch of STS-1 from the press site, here are some good ways to get within
3 miles of the pad:

1)  Get a press pass.  This isn't tough; I sent a letter to the head of
Public Affairs at NASA on the letterhead for a small space activist group
I was running.  You can also work out a deal with a local college paper,
newspaper, radio station, museum, or your company paper.  Send in letterhead
request perhaps two months in advance. If you get to the Space Center a few
days early, you can sign up for press tours,  sign up to photograph the
astronauts as they leave for the pad, etc.  I came back with a shopping bag
full of press releases, books, samples, and lots of film.  Be sure to write
something when you get back...
2)  Get together a group of people, and get a BUS pass to the VIP site.
Charter a bus out of Orlando or Daytona Beach.  I set this up for some
friends;  the bus cost $300 for 40 people.  Leave at 8PM the night before;
allow about 6 hours for a 30 mile trip (CROWDS!).  NASA would rather have 
people come in the chartered buses; the drivers know what they are doing,
and a parked bus takes up a lot less room than a dozen parked cars. GET A
BUS PASS BEFORE CHARTERING THE BUS, of course.
3)  Join the National Space Institute, and go on one of their tours.  

   If you get into the press site, bring plenty of film, spare batteries if
your camera needs them, a hat, sun screen, mosquito repellent, a folding
chair, a change of clothes and some munchies.  Plan on spending a night
without sleep.  The roads will be jammed;  you will be at the press site 
from noon the day before to about 6 hours after the launch.  There are vending
machines and chemical toilets.  You will swat your weight in mosquitos.

   Remember the inverse square law.  The closer you get, the better the show!

Keith Lofstrom
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

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

Date: 17 Dec 82 19:26:28-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihldt!ll1!otuxa!we13!rjk at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: The 3clipse is comming, The 3clipse is coming!!
Article-I.D.: we13.316
In-Reply-To: Article 5941ux.172
Via:  Usenet; 25 Dec 82 12:02-PST

A lot of netters should remember that last eclipse... I remember
laying on the grass near that big church next to the hotel in
Boston at Usenix...  It was *hot* there!   Brrrrrrrrrr.........
						Randy King

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

Date: 23 Dec 82 14:08:14-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Seeing STS launches
Article-I.D.: eagle.699
Via:  Usenet; 25 Dec 82 12:05-PST

I just spoke with a woman working in the Public Affairs office at KSC
about seeing launches.  She gives the address to write for car passes as

John F. Kennedy Space Center
PA-VIC
Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899

The public viewing areas at KSC for which a car pass is required
are about 6-6.5 miles away from the pad.  2,000 car passes are issued,
and they are already booked up for STS-6.  Since that was my reason
for calling, I'd like to know if anyone else who has already arranged to be
there has space in a car.  I was told that unless you are a VIP, you must
ride in a car with a vehicle pass to get on NASA  grounds.  The closest
one can get to the pad from surrounding areas is about 10-12 miles.

I did learn that passes are still available for STS-7, which will be
launched in April, although I had my heart set on seeing the next one.

Thanks,
Phil Karn

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

Date: 21 Dec 82 16:20:15-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: A question conerning Sirius
Article-I.D.: watmath.4125
Via:  Usenet; 25 Dec 82 12:25-PST

	Good point.  And I did mean that Jupiter's internal heat is greater
than that it receives from the Sun: I recall reading this in a semi-technical
article after the Voyager I flyby.
	I'm still curious: is it possible that Jupiter could pick up enough
mass from the Sun in its red giant stage to become a G, K, or M star?  If
it is, then the effective lifetime of the Solar System would be doubled.
					Rick.

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

Date: 25 Dec 82 11:11:45-PST (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: L5 Sailing
Article-I.D.: csu-cs.1943
In-Reply-To: Article omsvax.275
Via:  Usenet; 25 Dec 82 15:02-PST

Not sure if you realized this, but you can sail "upwind" in space.
The "wind" normally comes from a gravity source; if you turn the sail
right, you can LOSE orbital energy with respect to the source and fall
toward it.  This is overly simplified, but... (Anyone disagree?)

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

Date: 24 Dec 82 7:18:50-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Possible Main Engine Problem
Article-I.D.: alice.1338
Via:  Usenet; 25 Dec 82 23:16-PST

Officials have delayed announcing a firm launch date for STS-6 until
the first week in January in order to more carefully examine a possible
fault detected by the test firing of the Challenger's three main engines
last Saturday.  Preliminary data indicates a higher than expected concentration
of hydrogen in the rear compartment of the shuttle following the test.
Officials, who had planned to announce a date yesterday, will wait until
the cause is found and a remedy determined to announce the date.  27
January had been the target date since the test firing.

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

Date: 27 Dec 82 9:00:56-PST (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver at Ucb-C70
Subject: Halley's comet "captured" by astronomers
Article-I.D.: csu-cs.1946
Via:  Usenet; 27 Dec 82 17:26-PST

They've picked up Halley's comet on it's way in!  CSU professor Roger
Culver writes in the local paper (the Coloradoan, 821226):
"About eight degrees to the north and west of the bright star Procyon
in this month's crisp Colorado sky, an object glows with the brightness
of a birthday candle as seen from 60,000 miles away... at the very limits
of modern astronomical instrumentation. ... At the last appearance of
Halley's comet in 1910, astronomers "recovered" this object only a few
months before... perihelion."
He does not say who found it or where he got his information.
Pretty neat, huh?

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

Date: 28 December 1982 08:58-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Proposed mission to L5
To: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc @ UCB-C70
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I like your idea but may I suggest that we first test the solar-sail
system by itself and get it really working before we use it for the
fully-instrumented L-4 or L-5 mission? This is analagous to testing a
rocket engine on Earth in a test rig, then perhaps in test flights,
before applying it to a really serious use where lots of other
equipment is at stake.

I propose we design a solar-sail-test experiment. We'd have just the
solar-sail equipment and the communications system using an
omni-directional antenna. We'd have it let loose from the shuttle,
it'd sail around the shuttle without really getting far from it, then
perhaps we'd have it fly back to the shuttle for return to Earth
(perhaps we'd want to check wear&tear on the sail, or we might
actually want to re-use it rather than build a new one next time). If
it was very successful and by the end of the shuttle mission we had
enough confidence to put it into a longer test flight, we'd have it
move far away from the shuttle to avoid damage from de-orbit burns of
the shuttle. If after much testing we found it to be capable of going
to L-4 or L-5, we might send it there, with no special instruments,
just see if it can get there at all, and if so use radio attenuation
as it flies behind L-4 and/or L-5 to get a crude first approximation
to the amount of material there. As its final act, it could crash thru
L-4 or L-5 to get another estimate of material there (if it hits
something and gets destroyed, that's useful info), or go into orbit of
the Moon to provide occultation timing information, or return to LEO
for recovery by a later shuttle flight.

More likely it won't be totally successful and we'll just keep it in
LEO the whole time and build the next one better. When we get one that
works, we'll send it on the above-described very-preliminary L-4&5
mission.

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

Date: 28 Dec 1982 0956-PST
From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL>
Subject: solar sail tacking
To: space at KESTREL
cc: king at KESTREL

	It's pretty clear that you can't reach L5 from LEO without traveling
sunward (unless you launch in a polar orbit, but this is silly because in that
case you won't travel AWAY from the sun, either).
	Solar sails will tack.  If they reflect (almost) all of the light that
strikes them, the thrust will be (almost) perpendicular to the surface.  
(however the thrust is proportional to the sine of the angle the sail makes
with the illumination.  This quantity can go negative - if the sun strikes what
you consider to be the back of the sail, you get negative thrust.)
	You'll have to spiral outwards.  So what?  the mechanical parts have
to be able to move the sail at will, but that will be necessary anyway.
	I would suggest a small but robust sail for two reasons:

	1) don't push technology - it would be awfully embarassing to have your
large, extremely thin sail evaporate or something equally greusome.

	2) we're going into stormy seas.  The L5 "point" is very large and
contains a lot of guck (probably).

	3) what's the hurry?  If we can get even .0001G it should only take
nine months to get a delta-V of 20 KM/sec, which should be adequate.

	My last comment is that the tidal force of Earth is by no means
constant.  It declines with the CUBE root of the distance.  I don't know
whether we can get to L5 without getting close enough to the moon to have it
exert significant tidal influence.  I would recommend using the leading
trojan point for this reason.  Maybe mini-sails would be better stabilizers
than a tidal pendulum, at least after reaching a certain distance from Earth.


						Dick
-------

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

Date: 28 December 1982 1738-EST (Tuesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: Probing the Lagrangian points
Message-Id: <28Dec82 173801 DS30@CMU-CS-A>

Before rushing off to build an L4 probe, could someone tell us what
was learned by ISEE-3 (I think that's the name.  It's the probe that
is being diverted to intercept comet Giacobini-Zinner), which was
in orbit around L1 for three or four years?

		David Smith

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

Date: 28 Dec 1982 2007-PST
From: Ron Goldman <ARG at SU-AI>
Subject: shuttle status
To:   space at MIT-MC  

AM-Space Shuttle, Bjt,420
Largest Communications Satellite Being Readied For Launch
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - The world's largest communications
satellite, weighing 5,000 pounds, was being readied Tuesday for the first
flight of the space shuttle Challenger, although the date of the launch
remained uncertain because of a leak in the ship's hydrogen system.
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration says only that the
launch will be no earlier than Jan. 27. Even that depends on whether
engineers find the leak that flooded Challenger's engine compartment
with hydrogen during its first test-firing Dec. 18.
    Only 50 cargo specialists were at work this week; efforts to find
the leak are not to resume until Jan. 3.
    NASA spokesman Mark Hess said the engine test was normal but ''until
we determine the source of the leak we will hold off picking the
launch date.''
    At launch the shuttle has 383,000 gallons of hydrogen in its fuel
tank. The hydrogen combines with 143,000 gallons of oxygen to help
power the ship into orbit, assisted by the two solid rockets that
flank the craft.
    The satellite the shuttle and its four-man crew are to carry into
orbit is one of three NASA will use for all its spacecraft
communications. When the three are in place, NASA will be able to
close many of its ground stations and still maintain contact with
orbiting shuttles more than 85 percent of the time. The current system
of ground stations allows contact, both voice and data, only about 20
percent of the time.
    As part of the program to get the shuttle ready for flight, NASA had
scheduled two weeks of further engine tests beginning Jan. 3 and it
is during that time that the leak tests will be made.
    Hess said there are dozens of valves in the complex engine
compartment and any one could be leaking.
    ''The engines themselves look terrific,'' Hess said. During the 22nd
firing in December, the engines put out 90 percent of their power for
20 seconds.
    The crew of the sixth space shuttle flight is commander Paul Weitz,
pilot Karol Bobko and mission specialists Dr. Story Musgrave and
Donald Peterson.
    The flight has been extended from two to five days to get in a space
walk by Musgrave and Peterson. The walk was to have been taken by two
mission specialists in November but was scrubbed because of trouble
with their space suits.
    

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

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

30-Dec-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #83
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 83

Today's Topics:
			  OSCAR, AMSAT and ARRL
			       tidal forces
				 L5 probe
		 Heat pipes on the shuttle (reentry tech)
			    Private spacecraft
				car passes
				  Otrag
			  Solar sailing from LEO
			       Swigert Dies
	   please remove me from this mailing list. thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 82 20:21:50-PST (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: OSCAR, AMSAT and ARRL
Article-I.D.: eagle.700
Via:  Usenet; 29 Dec 82 1:56-PST

To correct a slight error in an earlier article:

The ARRL (American Radio Relay League) does NOT build amateur radio
satellites (the "Oscars"); in the Western world, this is done by the
Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT).  AMSAT-USA cooperates closely
with several other national AMSAT organizations in countries such West
Germany, South Africa, the UK, etc.  The ARRL is the "mainstream" amateur radio
organization with which AMSAT is affiliated, but AMSAT is an independent
international organization with separate membership.

Part of the confusion may stem from the fact that AMSAT turned over
operational control of Amsat-Oscar-8 to the ARRL after launch, in order
to free resources for further spacecraft construction.

Phil Karn,
Asst. VP Engineering, AMSAT

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

Date: 29 Dec 1982 11:25:11-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: tidal forces

   Would somebody care to actually look this up? The last time I investigated
I was told that tidal influence varied as the \4th/ power of the distance.

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

From: DP@MIT-ML
Date: 12/29/82 13:05:39
Subject: L5 probe

DP@MIT-ML 12/29/82 13:05:39 Re: L5 probe
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
  there is this one problem with launching from a getaway... NASA does
not allow the release of anything from a special. (you are allowed to
have the top open itself, so you can look out, and radiate heat. no
other emmissions (radio, com laser, etc) allowed. Also these things
are the size of a 30gal trash can, it would be awfuly hard to fit it
in.

 no reason not to do it, it just will have to go up as a regular load.
that is a lot more expensive... (it is claimed that the cost of a
getaway is less than the cost of the extra fuel required....)

						Jeff

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

Date: 29 Dec 1982 1404-EST
From: Ron <FISCHER at RUTGERS>
Subject: Heat pipes on the shuttle (reentry tech)
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Anyone up on the newer technology going into keeping the space shuttle a solid
on reentry?

I had read something in a NASA publication about plans for double layer surface
with minimal attachment areas on the inner surface, various insulating
blankets, and heat pipes to even out temperatures.  This to replace the
not-too-sturdy tiles.

(ron)
-------

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

Date: 29 Dec 1982 1413-EST
From: Ron <FISCHER at RUTGERS>
Subject: Private spacecraft
To: space at MIT-MC

Can anyone guess at the level of technology that we might have to reach before
it becomes practical for the average person to purchase a private vehicle that
could climb from surface to LEO?

This would assume conditions would be right: a need existed (everyone's
relatives lived in LEO or something... hmm, scratch that one...).  The question
then is how might it be done?  How might the average "Family spacecar" be
constructed?

(ron)

PS- I would consider answers like "Build a skyhook, put a road on it, viola,
drive your car (with appropriate oxygen injection) to LEO" reasonable but of
limited imagination.  Such a skyhook would have to have a very sturdy
guard-rail before most people would be allowed to drive on it... I certainly
wouldn't want to live nearby...  BAMM!  "There goes another one Martha..."
-------

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

Date: 29 Dec 1982 15:42 EST
From: wegeng.wbst at PARC-MAXC
Subject: car passes
To: Space at MIT-MC

For one of the later Apollo launches I managed to get a last minute car pass by
contacting a Senator from my home state.  He (or more likely a staff member)
arranged for the pass to be waiting in Florida when I arrived.  You might try
this approach if all else fails.

Don Wegeng
Xerox Corp
Rochester, NY

Wegeng.WBST@Parc-Maxc			(arpa)
seismo!rochester!rocksvax!rocks34!dw		(uucp)
intelqa!rocks34!dw					(uucp)

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

Date: 29 Dec 1982 2118-EST
From: HPM at CMU-CS-C
Subject: Otrag
To: space at MIT-MC

What luck. Aviation Week just published (Dec 27, 1982) an "executive
index", and I was able to find the last Otrag article. In the
October 4, 1982 issue, p 21, we have:

"Otrag to Market Sounding Rockets"

  ... liquid propulsion sounding rockets as an interim step toward
development of a satellite orbital launch vehicle.
	The new sendenhall jr.

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

Date: 17 Dec 82 15:34:23-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!coletti at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Color of the moon? - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1254
Via:  Usenet; 18 Dec 82 6:43-PST

#R:eagle:-69500:uiucdcs:12700025:000:788
uiucdcs!coletti    Dec 17 14:51:00 1982

     As far as the shots from orbit are concerned, I'm afraid the problem
was that the astronauts did not always use the correct filters on their
cameras.

     Presumably various scientists (geologists (selenologists?))
wanted to measure the reflectivity of the various lunar minerals
at different points in the spectrum.  This would help determine what
minerals they were looking at.  The filters would take have taken care
of that.

(Reference:  Brian O'Leary, "Making of an Ex-Astronaut".  He attributes
the problem to using super test pilots to do a scientist's job.)

					Neil Coletti
					..!decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!coletti

P.S.:  The real color is pretty much like what the returned lunar rocks
       look like; dark-gray beach sand.  Reflectivity under 10%
       (about 4% ?).

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

Date: 23 Dec 82 13:31:40-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70
Subject: Proposed mission to L5
Article-I.D.: omsvax.271
Via:  Usenet; 25 Dec 82 9:12-PST

			Disclaimer

The following is strictly tablecloth engineering, and may be the
fevered product of too much Sczechuan Beef.  I request your best
attempts to shoot it down.  It sounds as if it should work, but I just
don't know enough about celestial mechanics, etc, to say.



			Proposal

That some space society or consortium of societies send up in the
shuttle a getaway special package which contains a probe to be sent to
one of the Lagrange points L4 or L5.  The probe would be motivated by a
light sf Cancer at 51

(AP) Rep.-elect Jack Swigert (R-Colo.) died Monday night of cancer at
the Lombardi Cancer Institute of Georgetown University in Washington,
D.C., his office announced.  He was 51.

Swigert, a former Apollo 13 astronaut, was elected Nov. 2 to represent
Colorado's new 6th District.  He was to have been sworn in Jan. 3.

Before the election, Swigert said his doctors had diagnosed his
condition as bone marrow cancer, which later spread to his lungs.  June
Weiss, his press secretary, said the immediate cause of Swigert's death
was respiratory failure.

Swigert had been hospitalized in Washington since Dec. 19, when he was
flown to the Georgetown University hospital from his home in Littleton,
Colo.  He was being treated for the cancer and complications from its
chemotherapy.

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

Date: Wednesday, 29 December 1982  16:50-PST
From: PRESSBURGER at KESTREL
To:   space at mit-mc
Subject: please remove me from this mailing list. thank you.

 

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

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

31-Dec-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #84
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 84

Today's Topics:
			     L5 Solar Sailing
			     Re: tidal forces
		       tidal force inverse cube law
			 amateur space telescope
		     Amateur Space Telescope Address
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 82 11:11:33-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: L5 Solar Sailing
Article-I.D.: inuxc.569
Via:  Usenet; 30 Dec 82 2:56-PST

	The idea of building a solar sail and sending
out instruments packages into space is very appealing. If it could 
be done cheaply enough so that 100,000 or so space enthusiast in
this country could fund this sorta of project, it would really open
up space exploration. 
	As others have pointed out the first logical step would
be building and testing out a Solar Sail. To that end I remember 
reading that one of the many pro space groups, I believe the
World Space Foundation or maybe it is the World Space Federation???,
has been working for the last few years on designing a Solar Sail
to be launched from the shuttle. I've seen photographs of their proto-
types so they are quite a bit further along than just dreaming.
	Does anyone else have better information about the correct
organization and what progress they have made? It would help 
the current discussion on the net a great deal.

					Fred ABI/INDY

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

Date: 30 Dec 1982 06:18 PST
From: Gloger.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: tidal forces
In-reply-to: Your message of 29 Dec 1982 11:25:11-EST
To: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
cc: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, Gloger.es at Parc-Maxc

Did I miss something?  Actually look what up?

If you just want to know how to compute gravitational tidal
gradients, you start with the unit standard astrophysics equation,

        gravitational field strength = G*M/(d**2),

and you take the first derivative with respect to distance to get
the tidal effect,

        tidal gradient = 2*G*M/(d**3).

And a quick check:  The mass of the sun is 27 million times that
of the moon, while its distance from earth is 390 times that of the
moon.  The above equation suggests that the sun's tidal effect at
the earth compared to that of the moon will be

        27,000,000 / (390**3) = 0.45,

which is correct.  It's because that specific result happens to come
out within a small factor of one that earth has its strange
dual solar/lunar tides.

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

Date: 30 Dec 1982 0934-PST
From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL>
Subject: tidal force inverse cube law
To: space at KESTREL
cc: king at KESTREL

	Come on!  We don't have to "look up" the dependency of tidal
forces on distance!  The tidal force is the first derivitive of gravity with
distance.  Since gravity is D^-2, the tidal force is D^-3.


						Dick
-------

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

Date: 29 Dec 82 18:40:41-PST (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70
Subject: amateur space telescope
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2721
Via:  Usenet; 30 Dec 82 17:17-PST

Can somebody post the ma!iling address for the organization that is
building the Amateur Space Telescope?  I'm interested in joining.

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

Date: 30 Dec 82 6:55:25-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!evans at Ucb-C70
Subject: Amateur Space Telescope Address
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1194
Via:  Usenet; 31 Dec 82 1:06-PST

The Independent Space Research Group asks $15 for a supporting
membership, $25 for a patron, and $50 for a sponsoring member.
They are at:

		P.O. Box 1246
		Troy, N.Y. 12180

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

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

01-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #85
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 85

Today's Topics:
			  Shuttle Launch Tickets
			 no sail from the shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 82 11:03:25-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxm!houxa!houxt!houxn!houxh!tdl at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Launch Tickets
Article-I.D.: houxh.127
Via:  Usenet; 31 Dec 82 4:08-PST

My father recently (a couple of days ago) got tickets for the next 
shuttle launch by calling his friendly neighborhood senator. Of
course he happens to know the guy, so I'm not sure how much difference
that makes. He's also from Delaware so there is less competition
for the senator's time; but it couldn't hurt to call your senator's
office and see what he can do for you.

Tom Lovett    BTL Holmdel   x0056   houxh!tdl

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

Date: 30 Dec 82 13:54:42-PST (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: CAD.tektronix.tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70
Subject: no sail from the shuttle
Article-I.D.: tekcad.311
Via:  Usenet; 31 Dec 82 17:31-PST

   Solar sails are romantic, but they aren't too compatable with a trip from
the shuttle to L5.  The problem is air friction;  at 300 Km altitude, for
example, the "wind" resistance is around 200 micro-newtons per meter squared
(at orbital velocity), while the peak sail force is around 8 uN/m2. To get to
sufficient altitude that the sail will work, an IUS is needed;  why not just
use the IUS to get there, and avoid the weight of the sail?
   Other problems include radiation damage to instrumentation from the long
exposure to the Van Allen belt, collisions between the sail and orbital debris,
and large gravitational gradients.
   Sails are more suited to long haul interplanetary missions, where more
velocity change is needed and the vacuum is better.

Keith Lofstrom
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

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

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #86
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 86

Today's Topics:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 1983 1400-PST
From: Ron Goldman <ARG at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Maiden Launch Of Challenger Delayed Until At Least Feb. 1
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Launch of the shuttle Challenger has
been delayed until at least Feb. 1 and possibly ''much later in the
month,'' because of an unexplained hydrogen leak, space agency
officials say.
    A two-week search for the source of the leak into Challenger's main
engine compartment has now interrupted the regular schedule of tests
and preparations for the new shuttle's maiden flight, Hugh Harris,
public information chief at Kennedy Space Center, said Thursday.
    ''The launch could slip well into February,'' said Harris, if
another test firing of the shuttle's three main engines becomes
necessary.
    The leak - described as minuscule but about twice the acceptable
rate - was discovered after the initial test firing of the engines on
Dec. 18.
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration pushed back its
most recent tentative liftoff date of Jan. 28 after a telephone
conference between officials at KSC, Johnson Space Center in Houston
and NASA headquarters in Washington late Wednesday.
    Another meeting of the NASA management team is scheduled for Friday,
at which time a decision may be made on whether another ''flight
readiness firing'' of the engines should be carried out, said KSC
spokesman Mark Hess.
    Leading the trouble-shooting discussions is NASA's shuttle program
director, Gen. James Abrahamson.
    ''Feb. 1 is basically just a new 'no-earlier-than date' because
there has been no resolution of the problem and we will have to push
the prep schedule back on a few things,'' said Hess.
    Technicians were continuing their painstaking search of the main
propulsion system in efforts to determine how the slight seepage into
the engine compartment is taking place.
    The shuttle's ascent into orbit is powered in part by more than a
half-million gallons of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, stored in
the 18-story external tank and feeding into the spacecraft's powerful
engines.
    Officials fear oxygen could seep into the area of a hydrogen
accumulation, creating the possibility of a flash fire in the engine
compartment.
    NASA could decide at Friday's meeting to have technicians carry out
a series of tests to determine if components outside the engine
compartment are responsible for the leak, Hess said.
    A small leak was discovered in the nozzle of the No. 3 engine, but
Hess said it was not unusual to find a small crack in the many small
tubes that make up those nozzles.
    Because of the problem, the shuttle's cargo - a 5,000-pound
communications satellite - will not be loaded this weekend, Hess said.
Its loading date will depend on whether another engine test firing is
necessary.
    But the leak will not delay a launch countdown dress rehearsal
scheduled for Monday. Challenger's four-man crew will go through its
launch day routine, including climbing into the orbiter and
communicating with launch control.
    
ap-ny-01-06 1413EST
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #87
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 87

Today's Topics:
			  South Atlantic Anomaly
		     Re: Hail Columbia - film review
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 83 20:35:50-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry@UCB-C70
Subject: South Atlantic Anomaly

To refresh the memory of MAB (and anyone else who doesn't remember the
earlier discussion), the South Atlantic Anomaly is an area where the
Van Allen belts are unusually close to Earth's surface.  This is of
concern to spaceflight planners because an orbit which passes through
the S.A.A. will result in higher radiation doses than one which does
not.  For long missions, this influences considerations like the need
for shielded storage for photographic film.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 83 14:25:42-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!greg@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Hail Columbia - film review

San Diego also has shown "Hail, Columbia" in the Reuben Fleet Space Center,
which has an IMAX screen.  I have debated whether it would be reasonable to
arrange a special showing during Unicom.  Since the show is not the current
one, it would require a special rental of the Center.  What about it?  Are
there enough space junkies out there to fill the theater?  It would take
about 150 to 200 people to keep the cost reasonable.  If anything, Phil Karn's
review understates how good it is -- that test firing alone is worth the
admission price....

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #88
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 88

Today's Topics:
				 Re: SAA
		     Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 83 2:57:19-PST (Wed)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: SAA
Article-I.D.: eagle.706
In-Reply-To: Article watcgl.90
Via:  Usenet; 6 Jan 83 21:28-PST

I also purchased a copy of "The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual".
If you can tolerate the space cadet writing style, it actually does contain
a remarkable amount of detail, for a readily available publication.
The foldouts of control panels, orbital maps, etc, are particularly useful.

There is another (better) publication that describes the shuttle in even more
detail for the outsider: the Rockwell press kit, a thick (1.5")
loose-leaf notebook.  I do not know if further copies are available.

I borrowed a copy dated February 1981, and was amazed at its
depth, especially when you consider its intended audience...
However, even it contains some flubs.  They slavishly give virtually all
measurements in as many systems of standards as there are, e.g, 
distances in statute miles, nautical miles and kilometers.
In the section on thermal tiles, densities are in both kilograms
per cubic meter and in pounds per cubic foot.  However, a
conversion factor of 2.2 was used for all the numbers!  Gee, now I don't know
whether the tiles just float on water, or if they're also supposed to
float on air as well....

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 83 8:57:16-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxv!mhuxm!pyuxjj!rlr@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402
Article-I.D.: pyuxjj.383
In-Reply-To: Article eagle.709
Via:  Usenet; 8 Jan 83 4:33-PST

Please give credit where credit is due.  The headline "NUKE SATELLITE RUNS
WILD" (which was shown on ABC-TV's Nightline program) came from the infamous
New York Post, the home of class journalism!!!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #89
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 89

Today's Topics:
		  Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 83 0:05:36-PST (Sun)
To: space@mit-mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!courtney (Courtney Loomis)@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 - (nf)

Speaking of irresponsible acts...

    To suggest that "we've come to expect" irresponsible acts
from the USSR is to imply the crass generalization that "we"
(in the USA?) are somehow free from engaging in such acts.
In terms of toxic wastes, I would have to agree that we have
evidence (objective?) that the Soviet Union has been careless
in its attitude towards such environmental hazzards.  However,
when one considers the quantity of toxic (such as radioactive)
wastes produced by the US and when one considers the time frame
over which our disposal techniques are designed to be effective,
I think that the difference in the integrity of responsibility
between the US and the USSR toward our common Earth Home begins
to shink to insignificant levels (ie., we are both guilty of
choking ourselves to death).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Jan-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #90
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 90

Today's Topics:
			Re: Proposed mission to L5
		       Hail Columbia - film review
		       NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402
			       Cosmos 1402
		     Re: Curious Anomaly (Jr. astros)
			  Shuttle Schedule Info?
			Re: Shuttle Schedule Info?
		    Re: South Atlantic Anomaly - (nf)
			      L-5 Phone Tree
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Dec 82 22:19:50-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Proposed mission to L5
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2724
Via:  Usenet; 1 Jan 83 12:08-PST

Don't forget that you cannot use a Getaway Special to launch something
like this:  one of the restrictions on Getaway Specials is that they are
forbidden to vent, expel, or eject *anything*.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 83 22:38:31-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70
Subject: Hail Columbia - film review
Article-I.D.: eagle.703
Via:  Usenet; 7 Jan 83 6:50-PST

Last week while on vacation, I saw the film "Hail Columbia" in the IMAX
theater at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington.

IMAX is that novelty large-screen format which takes standard 70mm
film and turns it sideways, allowing each frame to be much larger than a
conventional 70mm movie frame.  (Most regular movie theaters use 35 mm film.)
IMAX films are projected on a screen roughly 5 stories tall; from just
about any seat in the audience, the screen fills your entire field of
vision, with some head motion necessary to see the corners clearly.
The oldest and best known IMAX flick is "To Fly", which came out in 1976.
There is also an 8-channel surround sound system using a separate
synchronized tape deck which doesn't waste any valuable film area on
sound stripes.

"Hail Columbia" is a Canadian-made documentary about 45 minutes long
with covers the first launch of Columbia, starting with the rollout at
Rockwell and the ferry flight to KSC.  More time than I liked was spent
splicing in film clips, e.g, "Young and Crippen's thoughts on the
mission".  However, the part you were waiting for was well worth the
price of admission.  From a remotely controlled IMAX camera 1000 feet
from pad 39A, the pre-launch static firing test and actual launch was
filmed.  During the static firing test, the "twang" in which the whole
stack bends under the thrust of the main engines is very visible.
After shutdown, the combined stack slowly swayed back and forth, settling
in its original position, while a blizzard of snow fell off the external
tank.  Very impressive!  The launch sequence is re-shown several times from
several different angles simultaneously, in a split-screen fashion 
obviously intended to overwhelm the viewer (and save time).  I would much
rather have seen each sequence individually on the whole screen.
The landing is also covered, although the IMAX camera couldn't get any
closer to the strip than the rest of the public.  You get to hear the
double sonic booms (why are there two, anyway?) that the TV commentators
usually talk over "Well, we should have the booms. Yup, I just heard
'em..."

Despite its flaws, this movie is a must-see for any space junkie
(such as myself).  One begins to get a feeling of the size and power
of the shuttle which doesn't even begin to come out through a TV screen.

I believe it has also been shown in a museum in New York City, although
I don't know if it is still there.

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 83 21:55:01-PST (Thu)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70
Subject: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402
Article-I.D.: eagle.709
Via:  Usenet; 7 Jan 83 7:05-PST

Did anybody see the headline in this evening's NY Daily News?

"NUKE SATELLITE RUNS WILD" (in three-inch type)

Putting nuclear reactors in low earth orbit is an irresponsible act
we've come to expect from the USSR; unfortunately, this kind of headline
is an irresponsible act I've come to expect from the NY Daily News.

(I don't subscribe to that rag;  I noticed it at the supermarket.)

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 83 2:20:34-PST (Thu)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70
Subject: Cosmos 1402
Article-I.D.: eagle.707
Via:  Usenet; 7 Jan 83 7:31-PST

As most of you have probably already heard, a Soviet spy satellite,
Cosmos 1402, is uncontrollable and likely to re-enter within the month.
Unfortunately, this spacecraft contains a nuclear power source with
about 100 pounds of enriched uranium.  An earlier satellite of similiar
design, Cosmos 954, re-entered accidentally several years ago in
northern Canada.

By interesting coincidence, Cosmos 1402 is the last object listed in my
Situation Report.  It was only launched on 30 August 1982.  It carries
catalog number 13441, in case anybody wants to order orbit bulletins
from NASA (this bulletin service was mentioned in the AP article, in
case you've seen it).

The Soviets aren't the only ones to fly spacecraft with nuclear
materials: the Apollo ALSEPs (lunar surface science experiments),
Voyager, and Viking were a few US examples.  But those generators were
designed to withstand launch disasters and accidental re-entry. For example,
there is a plutonium generator, probably still intact, sitting on the
floor of the Pacific from the Apollo 13 lunar module. Just in case
somebody wants to go and get it!

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 83 10:18:59-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!orion!lime!eds@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Curious Anomaly (Jr. astros)
Article-I.D.: lime.312
Via:  Usenet; 4 Jan 83 22:37-PST

About the preponerance of "Jr.'s" in the astronaut ranks...

My high school chemistry teacher was a personal friend of one of the leading
candidates for the first group of astronauts.  This guy's qualifications
were super, but he was rejected.  NASA told him that the only reason was that
he was the middle child in his family.  It seems that at first, NASA only
accepted first-born sons as astronauts!

	Ed Schulz, American Bell, Holmdel, NJ.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 83 14:29:31-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!reed@UCB-C70
Subject: Shuttle Schedule Info?
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.495
Via:  Usenet; 12 Jan 83 3:25-PST

I may have the opportunity to visit the Cape in the next three
months....can anyone tell me (via mail) when numbers 6 and 7 are scheduled
to go up?


Thanks,
Dave Reed, UTCS
...decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!reed

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 83 7:47:44-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Shuttle Schedule Info?
Article-I.D.: alice.1393
In-Reply-To: Article utcsstat.495
Via:  Usenet; 12 Jan 83 3:34-PST

STS-6 is now scheduled for the end of February.  STS-7,
originally scheduled for 20 April, will no doubt be
delayed past that date.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 83 13:26:09-PST (Sun)
To: space@mit-mc
From: CAD.tektronix!zehntel!zinfandel!steve@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: South Atlantic Anomaly - (nf)
Article-I.D.: zehntel.679
Via:  Usenet; 12 Jan 83 3:35-PST

#R:utzoo:-273200:zinfandel:11100003:000:173
zinfandel!steve    Jan  7 11:18:00 1983

	For long missions, this [MAB] influences considerations like the need
	for shielded storage for photographic film.
    
    Not to mention shielded storage for astronauts.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 83 13:06:50-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred@UCB-C70
Subject: L-5 Phone Tree
Article-I.D.: inuxc.582
Via:  Usenet; 12 Jan 83 3:43-PST

	I have had the same problem as Neil Katin with reguards
to the L-5 phone tree. I even agreeded to accept collect calls
and make local calls but I have never ever heard from them. I
can only assume that there are so few people interested in 
space exploration in central Indiana that L-5 doesn't have the
resources to support us.

				Fred ABI/INDY

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Jan-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #91
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 91

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Cosmos 1402 - (nf)
		  Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 - (nf)
			Re: South Atlantic Anomaly
			Decompression Case Report
		       Simulated Liftoff Successful
				Gray Tape
			      Re: Gray Tape
			   STS-6 Delayed Again
			 NUKE SATELLITE RUNS WILD
			      Shuttle's Roll
			    Re: Shuttle"s Roll
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #90
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 83 12:46:55-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!hamilton@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Cosmos 1402 - (nf)

Don't give the russians all the credit.  an item from the 7 Jan 83 Science:

   "The Defense Dept's plan to build a new generation of compact nuclear
reactors to power laser battle stations and other military satellites
[Science, 17 Dec 81, p1199] has an ominous history.  In 1964, a US nuclear-
powered satellite burned on reentry and contaminated the atmosphere with
plutonium.  Unlike the breakup of a Soviet nuclear satellite over Canada in
1978, the US accident received almost no publicity at the time....
   The incident began on 21 Apr 64 when a Transit navigational satellite
was launched from Vandenburg AFB in California.  On board was a power supply
known as SNAP-9A, a radioisotope thermoelectric generator that was fueled with
about 1 kilogram of Pu-238.  The rocket's engines failed in mid-flight, and
the satellite and its lethal payload came crashing back into the atmosphere
over the Indian Ocean.
   ...
   In 1964, search teams using sophisticated air sampling techniques combed the
crash site and subsequently decided the satellite had completely burned up
during reentry and that the plutonium had dispersed as a fine dust in the
atmosphere [Science, 10 Nov 67, p769].  Over the years, the plutonium slowly
worked its way down to the surface of the earth, mostly in the Southern
Hemisphere.  By 1970 about 95% of the SNAP plutonium had settled out of the
atmosphere.  The contamination was not unprecedented but it was quite large.
During the days of atmospheric nuclear testing, some plutonium had spread
throughout the atmosphere.  In contrast, the US satellite fiasco was estimated
to have resulted in a three-fold increase of Pu-238 contamination [Nature,
16 Feb 73].
   ...
   After the SNAP-9A accident, two other misfortunes befell the US space
nuclear power program.  In neither case was plutonium released into the
atmosphere.  The first occurred in May 1968 when a Nimbus weather satellite
failed to achieve orbit and plunged into the Santa Barbara Channel off
California.  Its plutonium power pack, known as SNAP-19, was recovered intact.
The final accident occurred in Apr 1970 when the Apollo 13 moon-landing mission
was aborted because of an onboard fire.  The command module and the three
astronauts were successfully picked up.  The lunar lander, however, plunged to
the floor of the Pacific Ocean and could not be found.  It is estimated that
its plutonium fuel pack, known as SNAP-27, will remain intact for about 860
years. -- William J. Broad"

(parenthetically, wjb is not my favorite science writer; fortunately,
the new york times is taking him...)
	wayne ({decvax,ucbvax,harpo}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!)hamilton

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 83 12:33:35-PST (Wed)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 - (nf)

Although the referenced article compares the US to the USSR in wanton planet
pollution, I would like to point out a few differences:  ONLY the Soviet
clique deliberately drops "yellow rain" [euphemism for chemical/germ warfare
agents, coined by its victims] onto adversaries defending their lands against
the Soviets; ONLY the aging, stagnant Soviet nation has ever had a nuclear
accident [carlessness? stupidity?  standard Soviet excellence?] that wiped
out thousands of square miles of its own land and people.

May I live to see the day when, at least one time, the socialist sympathizers
fail to bring up something that statist Americans have done, in excusing the
putrid Soviet system.  Russians gas/germ tens of thousands and the liberals
perform contortions to exucse it; Soviet complicity in assassination attempts
against the Pope is well known--the leftish types are merely embarassed.

Let's hear now how the Moon is polluted by the ALSEP and how that justifies
the Soviets dropping radioactive containers at random around the earth.

Jump in any time, apologists!

Da Svedahnyah
--arlan--abi/indy

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 83 10:02:25-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!watcgl!mabgarstin@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: South Atlantic Anomaly

    I am asking this on behalf of my wife who is into Edgar Casey and all that
stuff so don't bombard me with "Oh garbage.." or "..trash..". This question
should probably be submitted to net.psychic but I don't think that such a
beast exists.
    If anyone out there is familiar with the theory about the great crystal
of Atlantis would this and the S.A.A. be related in any way?
    Please reply by mail because I don't think too many netters out there
would want to hear any more than this on psychic stuff.

                                           MAB at Uni. of Waterloo
                                  ....!decvax!utzoo!watmath!watcgl!mabgarstin

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 1983 14:58-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
Subject: Decompression Case Report
To: space@mit-mc

The December 1982 issue of "Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine"
has an article describing an industrial decompression accident.  A
worker was accidently locked in a vacuum chamber and decompressed to an
altitude of 74,000 ft for 3-5 minutes.  He was above 63,000 ft for 1-3
minutes.  The worker suffered massive decompression sickness, followed
by burst lungs, cerebral air embolism, and ebulism (vaporized blood).
His life was saved by recompression in a hyperbaric chamber 5.5 hours
after the accident.  After showing some signs of neurological damage
the patient recovered, and, ten months later, surpassed scores on
psychological tests he had taken before the accident.

The article states that this is the most severe case of survived
unprotected human decompression on record, and demonstrates the
possibility of survival of whole body ebulism of longer than 1 minute.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 83 15:20:57-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb@UCB-C70
Subject: Simulated Liftoff Successful

The Challenger underwent a successful simulated lift off this
morning at 1104 EST.  The mock launch came after a half-day
test countdown in which the computers on board and those in
the control room simulated launch conditions.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 83 14:16:11-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: CAD.tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!alanj@UCB-C70
Subject: Gray Tape

It seems not all of the equipment that has gone into the US space effort
has been of "super high technology".

According to a short piece in the January *Space World*, we've been taking
aong good old fashioned duct tape for some time now.

The Appolo 13 crew "used it to tape maps together to make a box to hold a
carbon monoxide absorber designed for the command module but used in the
lunar module".

Another crew used maps and duct tape to improvise a fender for the lunar
rover.

On the last STS mission duct tape was used to tape Bill Lenoir to the floor
during a space sickness study (not related to the publicized problems).
The crew also took to improvising foot restraints --- just decide where
you want to stand (floor, wall, ceiling, etc), make a loop of tape and
you're stuck.

The article relates that, by the end of the mission they were running out
of tape and it had to be rationed!

	Alan Jeddeloh (tektronix!tekmdp!alanj

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 83 16:40:56-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: CAD.tektronix!tekmdp!mikem@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Gray Tape

MAPS!!!!

In case they get lost, or lose radio contact, they can find there way back?

Or were maps provided so the duct tape could be used?

Mike Mihalik

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 83 19:55:44-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb@UCB-C70
Subject: STS-6 Delayed Again

NASA has decided to conduct another test firing of the Challenger's
main engines to see whether or not fixes to several minor leaks has
solved the hydrogen leak problem, first discovered after the 18
December test.  The new test firing will be held in late January,
and STS-6 will lift off ''around the end of February.''  The loading
of her cargo, a 5000 pound communications satellite, originally
scheduled for this weekend, was also delayed until after the new
test.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 83 15:20:19-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70
Subject: NUKE SATELLITE RUNS WILD

Oops.  You're right, the New York Post, not the New York Daily News
ran that headline.  Its easy to confuse two similar tabloids on the
supermarket stands.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 83 9:23:45-PST (Wed)
To: space@mit-mc
From: npois!houxm!houxa!houxb!houxq!kenchan@UCB-C70
Subject: Shuttle's Roll

	Does anyone know why the shuttle rolls (about 90 degrees)
	just after it takes off?

				Ken Chan (houxq!kenchan)

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 83 14:46:14-PST (Wed)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Shuttle"s Roll

That is to put the shuttle on the correct launch azimuth, depending on
the desired orbital inclination.  Since the stack must fly with the
orbiter down, in order to facilitate SRB and ET separation, this
involves rolling the shuttle from the position on the pad shortly after
liftoff.  This is easier than rotating the entire pad!

Phil

------------------------------

Mail-from: Ethernet host GSB-HOW rcvd at 13-Jan-83 17:19:04-PST
Date: Thu 13 Jan 83 17:18:30-PST
From: Edjik <NCP.EGK@SU-GSB-HOW at STANFO>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #90

We in the Bay area can see the IMAX "Hail Columbia" show at the
Great America Amusement Park in Sunnyvale.  Its been running there
for about 1/2 year now.  I dont know how long it will be at
GA.  Probably another 6 months or so.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Jan-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #92
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 92

Today's Topics:
    complaints about ussr, yellow rain, polluted moon, snappy answers
			       Shuttle roll
		      Wanted: address for L5 society
			Shuttle GAS policy change
			Re: Shuttle Launch Tickets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 January 1983 12:32-EST
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  complaints about ussr, yellow rain, polluted moon, snappy answers
To: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan @ UCB-C70
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Foo, I thought this mailing list was space, not space-cadet.  Please
let's keep strictly political articles elsewhere.

Color war:  Yellow Rain - Agent Orange.  (And you know me, man, I never
apologize for nothin'.)

Oded

PS:  What's the half-life of Pu238?  Is its danger primarily chemical
	or radiological?  What WAS the resultant level of plutonium
	contamination (like in additional rem/person-year) over the
	southern hemisphere as a result of the SNAP-9A accident?  Or
	does one measure health effects of plutonium differently 
	than other materials?  (People who point at a document
	containing the answers will have less-tired fingers than
	those who type in all the replies.)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 1983 1022-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Let me just say that after the many times that duct tape (or gaffers
tape, as it is called in the theatre, in a slightly different flavor)
has saved whatever project or device I was working on, I would never
think of going on a spaceflight without a few rolls along.  

Don't leave home without it. --Tom

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 83 17:18:09-PST (Wed)
To: space@mit-mc
From: CAD.tektronix!iddic!evp@UCB-C70
Subject: Shuttle roll

The pad the shuttle takes off from is oriented such that the tail of the
shuttle is pointing almost South at liftoff. The trajectory taken after
liftoff is somewhere near East. Aerodynamic considerations dictate that
the shuttle tail be pointed in the plane of the orbit (upside down) as
the shuttle accelerates. This is what the roll maneuver does.

The pad is oriented the wrong direction because it was actually designed
to launch the Saturn V, which didn't much care which direction it pointed.
Both the pad and the crawler that moves the shuttle have been re-cycled
from the Apollo program.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 83 11:35:04-PST (Wed)
To: space@mit-mc
From: CAD.tektronix!zehntel!varian!vaxwalle!bob@UCB-C70
Subject: Wanted: address for L5 society

Where can one get hold of the L5 society ? Would you please put their
address into net.space or mail it to me .

		Bob Palin

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 83 18:35:40-PST (Thu)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70
Subject: Shuttle GAS policy change

I've heard from several sources that NASA may have changed its policy on
getaway-specials (GAS) to allow deployment of free-flying payloads,
perhaps even with kick motors.  Anybody know anything about this?  I'm
told that there was a UPI story on Jan 2 describing one university user
who planned on making use of a free-flying GAS.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 83 12:02:31-PST (Thu)
To: space@mit-mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rocheste!gary@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Tickets
Article-I.D.: rocheste.408
In-Reply-To: Article houxh.127
Via:  Usenet; 15 Jan 83 1:18-PST

A few weeks ago, someone posted the address to write for launch
tickets (for generic viewers, not press people). Could that person
please re-post (riposte??) or mail me the address? Thanks,

                                gary cottrell (...!seismo!rochester!gary)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #93
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 93

Today's Topics:
			rocket launch date request
			Re: Shuttle's Roll - (nf)
		   Why does the shuttle roll at liftoff
			   Second FRF Scheduled
			 Soviet Nuclear Stupidity
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 83 8:12:40-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ihuxv!lord82@UCB-C70
Subject: rocket launch date request
Article-I.D.: ihuxv.431
Via:  Usenet; 15 Jan 83 2:39-PST

This doesn't directly concern the shuttles.  Could someone post or mail
info regarding dates of rocket launches in the US involving lots of flame
and sound?  I, and some friends, would like to find something more 
spectacular than rocket dragsters.
                                     Dan Lord
                                     ihuxv!lord82

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 83 2:25:34-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!emrath@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Shuttle's Roll - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1333
Via:  Usenet; 15 Jan 83 2:46-PST

#R:houxq:-25000:uiucdcs:8500005:000:263
uiucdcs!emrath    Jan 14 01:54:00 1983

I believe it is in order to point it in the right direction.
Without the roll it would head NE along the coast, right over
heavily populated regions. Why it is oriented on the pad this
way I don't know. If I'm way off base on this one, sorry - please
correct me.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 83 14:06:02-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!duke!mcnc!cjp@UCB-C70
Subject: Why does the shuttle roll at liftoff
Article-I.D.: mcnc.1467
Via:  Usenet; 15 Jan 83 2:52-PST

Re: houxq.250

Because they built the launch pad pointing the wrong way?

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 83 20:22:32-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb@UCB-C70
Subject: Second FRF Scheduled
Article-I.D.: alice.1399
Via:  Usenet; 15 Jan 83 3:41-PST

NASA has scheduled Challenger's second FRF (engine test firing) for
26 January, ''give or take a day or two.''  If the source of the
hydrogen leak first detected last month is found to be external to
the engine compartment, NASA says that STS-6 should launch sometime
before the end of February.  However, if the problem lies within
the engine compartment itself, the launch will probably slip into
March, as one or more engines may have to pulled or replaced.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 83 12:30:22-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan@UCB-C70
Subject: Soviet Nuclear Stupidity
Article-I.D.: inuxd.228
Via:  Usenet; 15 Jan 83 3:46-PST

Although this is not directly related to Space, I must reply in the same
net.group where the discussion began--originally commentary on the Soviet
nuclear-powered satellite's imminent fall.

Some mail has asked me about the Soviet incident that contaminated thousands
of square miles with nuclear materials.  The incident occurred in the 1950s,
and has been written about by an exiled scientist, one of the Mevedyev (sp?)
brothers.  It was also the subject of a PBS (NOVA?) telecast a few years
ago.

Seems as if our socialist friends just piled the stuff up in a hole or three
somewhere behind a factory in the Urals and eventually it got close enough
to critical to spew crap out explosively, killing many and contaminating
thousands or more.  Crops and animals died and those lucky enough to have
survived were permanently moved out.

Compare the media reaction to this minor incident, with the quiet, reserved
discussions about the incredibly horrible, disastrous, and thoroughly
unforgiveable capitalistic conspiracy at infamous Three Mile Island.  Doubt-
less those who accuse me of living in a cave will take issue and say that
the Soviets might conceivably be guilty of a misdemeanor, but the United
States should forever be ashamed for the TMI incident.

(As an aside:  a Middle East-type engineer who once worked with the Soviets
building an N-plant, told me that their safety precautions, as well as their
manners, were non-existent.)

Flame if you wish, but don't flame RED.
=arlan=abi/indy

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #94
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 94

Today's Topics:
			       Spectroscopy
			    Re: Shuttle's Roll
			      Halleys comet
		     Re: Hail Columbia - film review
		   address for L5 Society, as requested
			      Re: Gray Tape
		     Re: Hail Columbia - film review
				 Goodbye
	     Re: L5 Society National Phone Tree activ - (nf)
		 L5 Society National Phone Tree activated
			 Cosmos 1402 info clamp?
		  Re: Hail Columbia - film review - (nf)
		 Failed Inverted Delays Simulated Launch
	 Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 - (nf) parse date string
	 L5 Society National Phone Tree activations to be posted
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 83 10:46:57-PST (Thu)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm@UCB-C70
Subject: Spectroscopy

As a hardcore amateur astronomer, I have been considering building a
spectrograph for an amateur observatory. I gotten several ideas for
building such a device but my knowledge of this subject is very limited.
Is there anyone out there that can help????

					Ron Meyer
					inuxa!rrm
					American Bell - Indy

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 83 9:56:57-PST (Thu)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!iwsl2!jgpo@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Shuttle's Roll

About eight seconds after liftoff, the Shuttle rolls 120 degrees to
the right, thus placing the STS (Space Transport System)/Orbiter
combination in a "heads-down" relationship with the Earth.  This places
the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) and External Tank (ET) at the *outside*
of the arc described by the Shuttle's path around the Earth.  At SRB
separation, the Shuttle is still following its curved path, but the
SRBs continue in a parabolic path which, due to their slightly higher
angular velocity, is, for the moment, *OUTSIDE* the
path of the Shuttle (i.e. away from the Earth).  After SRB separation,
the Shuttle enters a shallow dive and actually loses about eight miles
of altitude before main engine cut-off (MECO).  After MECO, ET jettison
occurs and the Orbiter maneuvers downward and to the left.
This maneuver, plus the slightly higher angular velocity of the ET (being
on the outside of the Shuttle's path) ensures maximum separation of the
Orbiter and the ET.  "Right-side-up" attitude is not attained until
after orbital insertion.


	Not afraid to be dating someone whose brother is an engineer
	   on the Shuttle project,

		John Opalko
		iwsl2!jgpo

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 83 10:37:05-PST (Thu)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm@UCB-C70
Subject: Halleys comet

Does anyone have astrometric data taken during the recovery of Halley's
comet last year. I would like to collect this data for my personal use,
however, all of the news articles I've seen have only stated Halleys
approximate position and not the precise coordinates.

					Ron Meyer
					inuxa!rrm
					American Bell-Indy

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 83 13:40:25-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhb5c!smb@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Hail Columbia - film review

"Hail Columbia" was being shown at the Museum of Natural History in
New York; unfortunately, the run ended about 6-8 weeks ago.  I managed
to see it just before it closed; I highly recommend it to all shuttle
buffs.

		--Steve Bellovin

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 83 14:19:28-PST (Thu)
To: space@mit-mc
From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver@UCB-C70
Subject: address for L5 Society, as requested

1060 East Elm, Tucson, Arizona, 85719   --   602-622-6351

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 83 14:31:22-PST (Thu)
To: space@mit-mc
From: CAD.tektronix!tekid!davido@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Gray Tape

January 83 issue of IEEE Spectrum has a picture of Lenoir being taped
to the floor of the shuttle.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 83 14:18:51-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: decvax!decwrl!sun!megatest!fortune!kiessig@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Hail Columbia - film review

	"Hail Columbia" is also showing at the Great America Theme Park,
right nearby in Sunny Santa Clara, California.

Rick Kiessig

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 83 22:35:46-PST (Thu)
To: space@mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer@UCB-C70
Subject: Goodbye

	I am off.  Friday my wife and I leave Waterloo for two months to
Look For America.  We are also looking at grad schools and places to work
in the United States.

	Therefore, I'll be off the net for at least three months, and possibly
for a longer time.  When I come back, I may be at any one of a number of
places in Canada or the United States.

	To all of you out there, thanks for some of the most interesting
reading I've had in a long time.  Space has always been my favorite subject:
I couldn't *talk* to anyone about it before - at least not constantly, and
daily.  And I've learned an awful lot.  And I am going to miss the net a lot.

	Take care, keep thinking, and you will hear from me sometime.  (Now,
is that a promise or a threat?)

					Cheers,
						Rick McGeer.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 83 14:26:47-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: hplabs!neil (Neil Katin)@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: L5 Society National Phone Tree activ - (nf)

I tried to join the phone tree for about a year after joining L5.
Unfortunately, L5 never got back to me when I checked the "join phone
tree" box.  I even went as far as writting a separate letter, but that was
never answered either.

They seem to have severe office support problems.

	Neil Katin
	hplabs!neil

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 83 10:06:20-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver@UCB-C70
Subject: L5 Society National Phone Tree activated

This time the request is general and openended, not specific.
Please send a letter, mailgram, and/or phone call to the senator(s)
and congresspeople of your choice, preferably those of your home
state, expressing general support for NASA funding.  This request
is timed to coincide with the start of the new Congress, so please
act within a week.

Thanks!

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 83 13:06:16-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70
Subject: Cosmos 1402 info clamp?

Rumor has it that the DOD has clamped down on further information
regarding Cosmos 1402. Anybody know about this?

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 83 12:29:10-PST (Wed)
To: space@mit-mc
From: npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!coletti@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Hail Columbia - film review - (nf)

    The double sonic boom occures because of the shuttle's tail.
It's so tall that it extends beyound the shock-wave (sonic boom)
that was generated by the nose, creating its own shock-wave.

    - Neil Coletti

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 83 15:37:49-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb@UCB-C70
Subject: Failed Inverted Delays Simulated Launch

A failed electrical inverted delayed today's planned simulated
liftoff of the space shuttle Challenger.  The incident, at
about 2300 EST yesterday, occurred 3 hours into the simulated
14 hour countdown, and engineers quickly replaced the component.
The delay, which will not affect the already set back liftoff
of the shuttle, postponed the simulated launch up to 24 hours.
Had it happened during the real countdown, there would have
been enough hold time to replace the old inverter and test the
new one.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 83 20:49:58-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 - (nf) parse date string

I've done a little research on the timely topic of nuclear generators in
space.

According to Jerry Grey's book "Enterprise", the US launched only one
nuclear reactor into space, in 1964.  The reactor was a SNAP-10A,
although he didn't give the satellite name so I couldn't look it up to
find out its orbit.

The reactor was launched with only the fuel inside (I believe uranium,
not plutonium, but I'm not clear on this) and was started up only when
it was in a safe orbit.  Since the health hazard is from the fission
products, not the uranium, this made for a minimal hazard in a worst-case
launch failure.

A number of American probes and scientific experiments have been powered
with plutonium RTGs (radio-isotope thermal generators).  These differ from
reactors in that the heat from fuel's natural radioactive decay is used,
instead of employing controlled fission.  Examples include Voyager, Viking,
Pioneer, and ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package). 
Nuclear fuels were used here simply because there is no alternative.  At
great distances from the sun, or during the 2-week lunar night, solar power
is useless, and the waste heat from the generators is needed to keep the
electronics warm.  For example, the first ALSEP, deployed on Apollo 11,
used solar panels.  It lasted several weeks.  The later ALSEPs used
RTGs, and they were still operating 8-9 years later when they were
finally shut off.

A considerable amount of safety is designed into these generators.  For
ALSEP, the plutonium was kept in a special cask until unloaded on the
moon.  These casks were designed to withstand launch failures and other
accidents; this planning paid off with Apollo 13, as I mentioned in an
earlier article.
(This info came from "History of Manned Space Flight", by David Baker.)
Remember also that all US launches take place over water for range
safety considerations, so that any abort would result in the generator
landing in the ocean.

By contrast, the Soviets are incredibly careless with their reactors.
Grey implies, but does not state outright, that their reactors are
started ON THE GROUND and launched operating!  (If anyone has further
info on this, I'd like to know.)  Furthermore, they are launched into
orbits so low that they will by default decay in several months unless
the kick rocket (which failed on Cosmos 1402) succeeds in boosting its
orbit.  There is simply no comparison with the American operating
methods; unfortunately the Soviets will probably succeed in getting
the "ban" Carter proposed on the use of nuclear sources in space.
All that would do is hurt American science projects, and the Soviets
would just ignore it anyway.

I don't want to get into a discussion of the whole nuclear waste issue,
but I do regard this Cosmos 1402 "catastrophe" with not much more than
mild amusement.  There are far more dangerous things in the world for me
to worry about.

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 83 10:02:13-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver@UCB-C70
Subject: L5 Society National Phone Tree activations to be posted

To my surprise, I've not yet seen much mention of the L5 Society nor
their very effective national phone tree.  Therefore, I will (unless
I receive feedback to the contrary) start to post notices of the
(infrequent) activations of the tree to net.space.

What is the phone tree?  So far as I know, of all the myriad local
and national pro-space organizations, the L5 Society is the only
which supports a nationwide, quick-activation political lobbying
effort.  The tree consists of a hierarchy of people who call other
people, fanning out about five levels deep, to cause phone calls,
mailgrams, and letters to innundate key national decision makers.

The tree is only activated rarely, about four times a year (or less).
Information passed down is sometimes sketchy (you have to act on
faith), including who, what, why, a phone number, etc.  In the past,
the tree has saved millions of dollars in funding for NASA, though
you don't hear about it much except through the L5 Journal and the
Congressional Record.

If you are a supporter of the space program as a means to the future
success and security of the human rac:

(1) Read the activation notices (they'll be short);
(2) Take action (it's easy);
(3) Have faith that you are acting in concert with thousands of
     true believers around the country;
(4) Join the L5 society!

Alan Silverstein
Fort Collins, Col.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Jan-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #95
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 95

Today's Topics:
			     re: solar sails
		  Tethers and Planetary Magnetic Fields
			    Double sonic booms
				L5 address
		       Re: Soviet Nuclear Stupidity
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 1983 1401-EST
From: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: redford at WAFER
Subject: re: solar sails

    Bruce Cohen's idea of a small, privately launched solar sail is
very appealing, but I think that atmospheric drag will prevent it
from being launched from low earth orbit.  Here's the argument:
    The light pressure on the sail is caused by the change in momentum of
the photons striking it.  The momentum of a photon is E/c where E is
the photon's energy.  The total pressure (force per sq meter) will
then be I/c, where I is the intensity of sunlight ( energy per sq
meter per second).  The solar constant is about 1400 W/m^2.  Not all
the photons will be reflected, and some won't even be absorbed, but
let's keep the above for order of magnitude calculations. So,

Pr = 2 * 1400 W/m^2 / 3e8 m/s  = 9e -6 N/m^2

which isn't much.  Nine millionths of a newton is the weight
of 1 milligram of stuff on earth.  The factor of 2 is because the photon
is reflected instead of absorbed.  Naturally, the force varies as
the sine of the angle between the sheet and the sunlight, although
the direction of the force will always be normal to the sheet (assuming
all reflection and no absorption).
    Now, to find the atmospheric drag, I assumed that the sheet would
simply sweep up all the atoms in its path.  That is, all the atoms collide
inelastically with the sheet, and they don't interact with one another
(so we won't get any aerodynamic effects).  Then the flow of mass past the
sheet is rho * v, where rho is the density and v is the velocity.  The
momentum change is the mass flow times its change in velocity, so 

Pa = rho * (v^2)

The velocity of an orbiting sheet is something like 8 km/s, so here is
the atmospheric drag as a function of altitude.

alt. (km)	| density (kg/m^3)	| drag (N/m^2)
----------------------------------------------
200		| 3.07e-10		| 2e-2
300		| 3.53e-11		| 2e-3
500		| 2.04e-12		| 1.3e-4
800		| 8.06e-14		| 5e-6

I got the numbers for atmospheric density from the Encyclopedia Brittannica.
Unfortunately, they only went up to 800 km.
   The shuttle flies at 300 km.  At that height, the atmospheric drag is
220 times the radiation pressure.  Only above 800 km will the two forces
become comparable.  This means that the sail will have to have a booster on
it.  The sail's unfurling and control mechanisms could still be tested in
low orbit, but to go anywhere it's got to get further out of the
atmosphere.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 1983 8:35-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
Subject: Tethers and Planetary Magnetic Fields
To: space@mit-mc
Reply-to: dietz@USC-ECL

Jerry Pournelle has an editorial in the latest Analog about tethering
together shuttle external tanks to prevent wuick orbital decay.  This
idea came from work NASA is doing on a tethered sattelite that will
hang below the shuttle in the upper atmosphere, a region normally
inaccessible to aircraft (too high) and sattelites (too low).  Tidal
forces keep the tether oriented vertically.

An interesting thing not touched upon in Dr. Pournelle's article is a
proposal to make the tether conductive, with, say, copper.  The tether
is then a wire tens of kilometers long, moving at about 7 km/sec
through the earth's magnetic field.  The earth's field is about .3
gauss at the equator.  This field will generate an electric field in
the wire on the order of a tenth of a volt per meter.  A twenty km wire
will have a potential difference of 2000 volts.

To exploit this you'll have to have some way of closing the circuit.
The lower end of the tether is in the upper atmosphere, which is highly
conductive.  The upper end, which I believe is negatively charged, can
have a large, hot electron emitting surface.  We might run into
problems if these electrons get trapped in the earth's magnetic field,
but in LEO they'll probably run into gas atoms soon.

The electricity doesn't come for free; it comes from the kinetic energy
of the sattelite, shuttle and tether.  If we want to build a generating
station using this principle we'll have to find some way of pumping
lots of kinetic energy into it.  A large asteroid in orbit aound the
earth would have tremendous kinetic energy, and could serve as one end
for such a device.  You'd want the heavy part of the system to be in
as low an orbit as possible to get maximum orbital velocity.  Another
source of energy would be matter from the moon dropping into earth's
gravity well.  A high enough tether could discard charge into the solar
wind;  return current would come from the wind onto the earth's poles.

Thus we can exploit the true energy resources of the solar system:
kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy.  None of these
inefficient solar power sattelites!

Unfortunately, earth's magnetic field is pretty weak, and by the time
you get to geosynchronous orbit it is nearly gone.  Solar wind doesn't
help.  The best place to do all this is around Jupiter.  Jupiter's
"surface" magnetic field is around 4 gauss, and low-jovian-orbit speed
is 42 km/sec, so we should be able to get electric fields of on the
order of ten volts/meter.  But we can play another game:  Jupiter
rotates very fast (9h 55m), and synchronous altitude is about 1.2
planetary radii above the surface.  The magnetic field is huge,
extending out for many tens of radii.  The field moves with the planet,
so if a tether is beyond the synchronous altitude the effect is to
*accelerate* it, pumping energy into the satellite.  The current can be
used to accelerate ions, giving additional thrust.

We are, in effect, extracting energy from Jupiter's rotation.  Another
energy source!  Watch out for belt radiation, though.  This effect
should also work on Jupiter's moons.  This effect may cause small
conductive bodies to be thrown out of the jovian system.  Is this why
Jupiter doesn't have big rings?  Is Jupiter's ring at synchronous
altitude?

 

------------------------------

Date: 17 January 1983 1120-EST (Monday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: Double sonic booms
Message-Id: <17Jan83 112048 DS30@CMU-CS-A>

All supersonic planes generate double booms.

If you look at wind-tunnel photos of
bullet-shaped objects, you will see shock waves coming from the nose
and the boat-tail, and from other points, such as the widest
diameter.  An article I read many years ago showed diagrams of the
many shock waves (nose, cockpit, leading edges, trailing edges,
boat-tail, you name it) merging as distance from the aircraft increases,
until there are two main waves, associated with the nose and tail.  The
two waves form an N-shaped pressure pattern.  With the nose wave,
pressure rises sharply above ambient atmospheric pressure.  From there,
the pressure falls to below ambient, until the tail wave brings the
pressure sharply back to ambient.  The two sharp pressure changes are
heard as a double boom.

I have been annoyed to hear the TV announcers say that the booms
are generated (only) at the moment the aircraft slows to below the speed
of sound.

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 17 January 1983, 23:26-EST
From: Richard M. Stallman <RMS at MIT-OZ>
Subject: L5 address
To: space at MIT-MC

The national headquarters is at

L5 Society
1060 E Elm
Tucson, AZ 85719

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 83 1:11:07-PST (Sun)
To: space@mit-mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rocheste!sher@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Soviet Nuclear Stupidity
Article-I.D.: rocheste.417
In-Reply-To: Article inuxd.228
Received: by SRI-UNIX.uucp from Usenet.uucp using phone; 17 Jan 83 22:16-PST

To continue a discussion that probably should be in net.politics but 
what the hell, the main reason that US newsmen cover American nuclear
mishaps is that if the reactor several miles north of New York City
blows up, endangering the entire 2*10**7+ people in the metropolitan
area, my mother father sister brother and various other relatives and
friends will be endangered.  If all the reactors in Russia blow up
simultaneously many million Russians will be endangered.  Now which
possibility is more important to me?

=David Sher (oftimes ai project)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #96
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 96

Today's Topics:
			    More on tethers...
			 good publications - (nf)
			 SPACE/SCIENCE fallacies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 1983 7:36-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
Subject: More on tethers...
To: space@mit-mc
Origin: usc-cse
Via:  Usc-Cse; 18 Jan 83 08:31:55

A piece on the planned tethered sattelite is in a recent Aviation Leak.
The tether will be 100 km (!) long, made of either kevlar, braided
kevlar/copper or copper/steel.  With conductive tethers current will be
controlled by an electron gun in the shuttle.  Both upwards and
downwards tethered sattelites will be used.  An upwards tether would be
an easy way to get something out of LEO, without rockets or putting the
shuttle up there.

I should point out Larry Niven's recent novel (The Descent of Anansi)
has a tether.

The problem of electrons building up in the magnetosphere can be solved
by shooting them off the negative end of the tether along the magnetic
field lines, in the 'loss cone'.  They should then penetrate to the
atmosphere, completing the circuit.

 

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 83 20:27:10-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!whaley@UCB-C70
Subject: good publications - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1337
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-UNIX.uucp with rs232; 18 Jan 83 5:23-PST

#N:uiucdcs:12700031:000:211
uiucdcs!whaley    Jan 14 19:29:00 1983

What are the best publications to read to find out about the space
program?  I see a note about space world, but don't know how good
it is or what else is out there.

Al Whaley
Univ of Ill
pur-ee!uiucdcs!whaley

------------------------------

Date: 18 January 1983 14:51 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: SPACE/SCIENCE fallacies
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Re crash of Cosmos 954 in Canada in 1978:
"Concern was not related to the potential damage the two-ton piece of
machinery could have caused when it hit, but tht fact that it carried
110 pounds of enriched U-235 isotopes ... Fortunately, the nuclear
material and some of the reactor burned up on re-entry."

The misconception is that when radioactive material burns (vaporizes
and subsequently mostly oxidizes, leaving a fine dust of oxide in the
atmosphere) that somehow the radioactivity is gone. How can the media
be so gullible?? Actually the total radioactivity is the same, but
with the stuff in a fine dust it's more likely to be inhaled than when
it's in one clump on the ground. This is especially true of Plutonium.

Anybody else want to comment on this, giving more info about danger as
a function of particle size and oxidization state?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #97
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 97

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Soviet Nuclear Stupidity
			   Amsat/Vita agreement
			   Re: Gray Tape - (nf)
		       First Chimp into Space Dies
			   "The sky is falling"
				L5 address
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 83 19:09:06-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!duke!bcw@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Soviet Nuclear Stupidity
Re:	Soviet nuclear waste disaster

There is copious documentation for this disaster;  there have been articles
in New Scientist especially about it, though I have seen articles in other
publications (Science? Don't remember offhand).  The only nit is that it
really didn't get close to critical (or at least is not widely believed to
have gotten close to critical), it's just that the heat of decomposition got
so high that it disintegrated its dump site ...

			Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 83 21:11:48-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70
Subject: Amsat/Vita agreement

Jan 14,1983 -- The Radio Amateur Satellite Corp.  (AMSAT) and the 
Volunteers In Technical Assistance (VITA)   {note -- pronounce as 
VI-TAH  as in the word vital}   have today announced their intent 
to  pursue  a  joint effort to develop a  low-cost  packet  radio 
satellite system called PACSAT.

VITA,  headquartered  in Rosslyn,  VA,  is a  private,  nonprofit 
organization  that supports people working on technical  problems 
in  developing countries with technical information  provided  by 
thousands  of volunteer scientists,  engineers and technologists. 
The  information and assistance VITA provides is aimed at helping 
local  people  in developing countries to  select  and  implement 
technologies appropriate to their local situations.

VITA Director Henry Norman and VITA Project Coordinator Dr.  Gary 
Garriott  (WA9FMQ)  today announced that VITA  has  just  awarded 
AMSAT a $15,000 Design Definition Grant to support development of 
PACSAT  as  a reliable low-cost digital satellite system to  meet 
requirements  for  communications  of  technical  information  on 
renewable   energy  resources  to  and  from  their  many   field 
locations. AMSAT's role in this joint activity will be to provide 
hardware  suitable  for  demonstration programs  and  to  provide 
technical  assistance  in developing a low-cost system.  Part  of 
this effort will involve adapting solar power,  amateur radio and 
personal  computer technology for use in the field,  far  removed 
from any technical support.  

AMSAT's  PACSAT project manager Den Connors (KD2S) indicated that 
this   grant  will  support  initial  PACSAT  design   definition 
activities  which are being coordinated by AMSAT with work  being 
done in some 15 locations around the world.

It  is also of interest to note that WA9FMQ is a cousin  of  NASA  
astronaut  Dr.  Owen Garriott,  W5LFL who may be amateur  radio's 
first  "space  mobile" by operating from the Space Shuttle  if  a 
proposal submitted by AMSAT and ARRL is approved by NASA.


AMSAT
850 Sligo Ave.
Silver Spring, MD 20910

VITA
1815 North Lynn St.
Rosslyn VA 22209

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 83 22:27:33-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan@UCB-C70
Subject: Re: Gray Tape - (nf)

"Duct tape is like The Force - it has a light side and a dark side, and
it holds the universe together."

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

		I'm not afraid to sign someone else's name
		Neil Coletti

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 83 20:00:32-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb@UCB-C70
Subject: First Chimp into Space Dies

Ham, the chimp that went into space before Alan Shepard, died
yesterday at the North Carolina Zoological Park, where he had
lived for the last 2.5 years.  An autopsy on the chimp, who made
a sub orbital flight aboard a Redstone rocket on 31 January, 1961,
will be performed at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in
Washington, DC.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 1983 0409-PST
From: Henry W. Miller <Miller at SRI-NIC>
Subject: "The sky is falling"

Russkie Satellite:

	The amount of radiation per capita depends on whether the
satellite burns up on re-entry, or actually impacts somewhere on
Earth.

	Should it vaporize in the upper atmosphere, the gulf
stream winds (or equavalent) would tend to carry the particles
a great distance.  Many might never reach ground.  (Water, maybe)

	If it hits real ground, and the reactor cracks, well,
that's a different story...

	Another thing that gripes me:  they say they don't know
where it will come down.  Get Serious!  We have orbital mechanics
down to a fine art, and have mega machines doing the calculations.
We also have long-range weather forcasting, and can determine
atmospheric patterns long enough in advance for the critical
"fall" period.

	Anyone care to debate this?

-HWM

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 83 16:34:34-PST (Thu)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!houxz!hocsb!hocsf!hocse!dls@UCB-C70
Subject: L5 address
Article-I.D.: hocse.105
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-UNIX.uucp with rs232; 19 Jan 83 5:13-PST

The L5 address(International Headquarters) is

L5 Society
1060 Elm St.
Tucson, Arizona 85719

It is actually East Elm St.

I urge all persons interested in seeing mankind move into
space to join the L5 society, along with people like Freeman Dyson,
Jerry Pournelle, Dr. Thomas Paine, Robert Heinlein, Barry Goldwater,
Charles Sheffield, etc. etc. The L5 society is the major grass roots
space activist organization in the USA. A New Jersey chapter is currently
forming which meets at the Henry Street Library in Linden NJ(exit 136)
on the parkway on the second Wednesday of each month. We will be
manning(personing?) an L5 booth at "Super Science Sunday" January 29-30
from 9 to 5(Sat) and 12 to 5(Sun) at the New Jersey State Mueseum.


Hope to see you there.  Dale L. Skran Jr.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #98
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 98

Today's Topics:
			 Hail Columbia revisited
		     pinheaded criticism of the USSR
		   Re: publications about space program
			   SPACE Digest V3 #95
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 83 0:04:54-PST (Wed)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70
Subject: Hail Columbia revisited
Article-I.D.: eagle.734
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-UNIX.uucp with rs232; 19 Jan 83 7:26-PST

Last weekend, while on a trip to the DC area, I saw Hail Columbia for a
second time.  As I was leaving, I thought that I might have been
too hard on it in my review last month; I guess film reviewers always
have to say at least one negative thing about a film in order to be
credible.

All I can say is this:  If you see Hail Columbia once, you'll be
ready to see it again very soon.  It is simply FANTASTIC!!  I went with
two male friends, both older than I am (26), one of which had the guts
to admit being moved to tears by the liftoff scenes.  So was I, but
then again I always go a little crazy watching launches, even on TV.
(My other friend used to work on the Delta launch team, so it was 
old hat" to him.)

I remembered a number of minor highlights this time.  My favorite was
John Young's reply to a press conference question something like
"I understand you'd have trouble ejecting during the burn of the
solids", which consisted of a shrug and "You just pull the little
handle."

I could go for another five showings of this movie myself.

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Received: from M.PCO.LISD.HIS by MIT-MULTICS.ARPA dial; 20-Jan-1983 18:27:50-est
Date:  20 January 1983 18:26 est
From:  Margulies.Multics at M.PCO.LISD.HIS
Subject:  pinheaded criticism of the USSR
To:  space at MIT-MC

There is something frightening about the ability of some folks (arlen
--/indy) to make up stories as they go along in their efforts to create
distinctions between the East and the West in terms of public policy.

There is indeed a difference. The solviets oppress nearly everyone, and
we only oppress minorities, poor people, and folks who live in countries
run by our friends.

We've never decimated ourselves with a nuclear accident?  Only by luck.
Look at windscale and the incident outside of chicago.  There is no
evidence that our luck is the product of more concern for the people
involved. Hell, look at TMI?

They dump yellow rain? Well, we pay the indonesians to slaughter
hundreds of thousands in east timor. Not to mention less clear cases
like el salvador.

Both east and west are run by oligarchies that are primarily concerned
with fattening their bank accounts and those of their friends. The
difference is one of degree. The vestiges of democracy in the west
restrain our "leadership" from some of the excesses of their Eastern
counterparts, but ask the chicago 7 (or the kent state 4) about the
extent to which it works.

Anti-USSR rhetoric serves only to distract us from the real problems,
which know nothing of nation-state boundaries.

Ask any anarchist.

--benson i margulies

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 83 13:54:02-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!ihnp4!ihlpb!cdc@Berkeley.arpa
Subject: Re: publications about space program
Article-I.D.: ihlpb.249
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-UNIX.uucp with rs232; 20 Jan 83 18:28-PST

I heard "Avionics Week" was a good source of info
about the space program.

------------------------------

Date: 21 January 1983 02:23 EST
From: "James Lewis Bean, Jr." <BEAN @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  SPACE Digest V3 #95
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: The message of 18 Jan 1983 0303-PST from Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>

 Q

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #99
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 99

Today's Topics:
			    orbital mechanics
				ScramJets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 1983 1012-PST
From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins )
Subject: orbital mechanics
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: miller at SRI-NIC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 20-Jan-83 0302-PST

With regard to predicted where the satellite falls:  there is just no way to
predict how an odd shaped object that is tumbling to boot will bounce off the
atmosphere when it hits it.  Fractions of an inch difference in its 
orientation might make a large change in what happens when it hits the 
atmosphere or turbulence.  It would be similar to (though not equivalent to)
the problem of throwing an odd shaped rock across the surface of a lake
and predicted exactly which way it will bounce when it hits the lake (so that
you can predict exactly which way it will bounce the second time and third
time . . .). We can't do either.
David
-------

------------------------------

Return-Path: <gutfreund@umass-coins.UMASS-COINS@UDel-Relay>
Date:     18 Jan 83 14:46-EST (Tue)
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-coins@UDel-Relay>
Subject:  ScramJets
To: space@mit-mc
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 22 Jan 83 0:53-EST

Is anyone familiar with the operational and design difficulties in
SCRAMJETS? I saw an article in the Jan OMNI mention this as a possible
means of accelerating a plane up to MACH 20 where spaceflight becomes
realistic. OMNI, though, does a rather shoddy and populist job of
explaning technology, can anyone give me a better and more technical
explanation?


					Steven Gutfreund

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Jan-83  2319	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #100    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:
			   Engine Test Tuesday
			  MAILING LIST ADDITION
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 83 15:38:48-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb@Berkeley.arpa
Subject: Engine Test Tuesday
Article-I.D.: alice.1414
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-UNIX.uucp with rs232; 22 Jan 83 11:21-PST

A 56 hour countdown scheduled to start at 0900 EST tomorrow
will culminate Tuesday morning at 1100 EST in the second test
firing of Challenger's main engines (or so NASA hopes)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 1983 1651-PST
From: JTSCHUDY at USC-ISIE
Subject: MAILING LIST ADDITION
To:   space at MIT-MC

Hi!  My name is Jim.  I am presently attending the Naval Post Graduate
School in Monterey California.  I am in the Air Force  enrolled  in  a
DOD  sponsored  graduate  degree in Command Control and Communications
Systems Technology.

i  would  like  to  be  added to your mailing list.  My net address is
JTSCHUDY at ISIE.

Thanks - Jim.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #101    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 101

Today's Topics:
			   more on solar sails
	       Challenger further delayed by hydrogen leak
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jan 1983 1006-EST
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: more on solar sails
Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11890492494.17.583.3688 at DEC-MARLBORO>

Here are some more thoughts on solar sails:

If a charge is put on a conducting film, does it tend to flatten out?
I would expect that the repulsion between all the charged particles would
straighten out any kinks or folds in the film, since the configuration that
lets the charges get the maximum distance away from one another would
be a flat sheet.  This seems to happen in Leyden jars.  When a charge is
put on the post, the two gold leaves fly apart.  They don't completely flatten
out because their weight counteracts the electrical repulsion.  In space,
though, the only counteracting forces would be the film's mechanical 
resistance and any stray magnetic fields.  This might be a good way to 
keep a solar sail flat.  A charge could be put on the sail with an
electron gun.  This could stiffen the sail without having to have
a complex tension structure.

    Suppose that the sail's shape can be controlled even more 
closely.  Suppose it can be formed into a parabolic dish.  I can think
of two useful things that could be done with this.  One is to focus
sunlight on solar cells on the instrument pod.  Every now and then the
sail would take a break from its main propulsion duties by forming into 
a dish and charging up batteries in the pod.  By concentrating the sunlight
a much smaller and lighter solar cell array could be used.  There would
also be more power available in the outer solar system.  Dissipating the
extra heat would be a problem, though.  

     Another good use of a dish would be as a radio telescope.  The sail
could station itself at L5 and then be used as part of a radio 
interferometer.  The other half of the interferometer would be on earth.
The resolution of an interferometer depends on the distance between
the elements.  The maximum distance we can get at present is by putting
telescopes on opposite sides of the earth, some 8000 miles apart.  With a
telescope at L5, the baseline would be 240,000 miles. However, phase shifts
might be a problem. Interferometers work by taking two signals and coherently
combining them.  That is, they take the phase as well as the amplitude into
account. Since the sail would have to send its signal back to earth through all
kinds of media that might shift the phase of the signal, this scheme might not
work.  Even so, it might be worth it to have a radio telescope that far from
the earth's chatter. 

John Redford
DEC - Hudson
   --------

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 83  0017 PST
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: Challenger further delayed by hydrogen leak
To:   space@MIT-MC

Hydrogen Leak Again Found In Test-Firing Of Engines
By IKE FLORES
Associated Press Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - A tiny hydrogen leak which reappeared
during a test firing of the space shuttle Challenger's main engines
may set back the entire shuttle program, including the U.S.-European
Skylab mission, officials say.
    The gas leak was found in Challenger's main engine compartment after
a test firing Tuesday, and the director of the shuttle program said
the start of the craft's five-day maiden mission will be delayed at
least until mid-March.
    Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, associate administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, said the delay could be
much longer if one or more engines must be replaced. Officials said
any replacement might come from the the shuttle Columbia, a veteran of
five space missions which is undergoing extensive overhaul at the
Kennedy Space Center.
    Abrahamson said the entire shuttle program could be set back if
Challenger's problem is serious. But he emphasized that it would be
some time before all test data is analyzed and the full extent of the
problem is known.
    The hydrogen leak detected in Tuesday's test firing was ''of the
same order of magnitude as it was the first time,'' Abrahamson said.
The problem first cropped up after the first engine test on Dec. 18.
    ''We've concluded, in our own mind, that it is a high-pressure leak
in the high-pressure portions of the engines,'' said Horace Lamberth,
fluid systems chief at the space center. He said it would take up to
four weeks to replace one of the three main engines.
    Finding the problem is going to be a ''real detective job, and one
that will be difficult,'' Abrahamson said. He said a third engine
test, called a flight-readiness firing, may be made, causing even more
delay.
    Challenger was originally supposed to replace its sister ship
Columbia sometime in late January. Besides the flight which had been
tentatively set for March, Challenger is to fly the seventh and eighth
missions in the shuttle program, set for April and July.
    Columbia is due to return to service for the ninth mission in
September, when it will carry an international crew of six and the
European-built Spacelab, a scientific laboratory.
    ''It is important to maintain the Spacelab timing,'' Abrahamson
said. ''I'm not prepared to say that we have to give that up'' because
of the possibility of long postponements caused by the problem with
Challenger's engines.
    ''We are not prepared (now) to go ahead and load the payload nor set
a date'' for Challenger's first mission, Abrahamson said.
    Lamberth said data from hydrogen sensors installed in the engine
compartment for the test would be analyzed for several days to
determine the specific source of the leak.
    Although the leak is small, technicians say a spark or short circuit
could start a fire or an explosion in the engine compartment, and
Abrahamson added, ''We are being very conservative.''
    

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #102    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 102

Today's Topics:
			      Re: Scramjets
			   more on solar sails
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 1983 13:55-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
Subject: Re: Scramjets

Scramjets are hard to design because they can't be tested in wind
tunnels.  Ordinary wind tunnels use scale models and reduced air
velocity to maintain the same Reynolds number.  In the hypersonic
realm, though, the Mach number is also important, and you can't scale
it at the same time.  See the Feynman lectures on physics, volume 2,
page 41-6.


 

------------------------------

Date: 27 January 1983 05:44 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: more on solar sails
To: VLSI @ DEC-MARLBORO
cc: "REDFORD@SHORTY" @ MIT-MC, space @ MIT-AI

If the purpose of the solar sail is to avoid needing to develop an ion
rocket (i.e. a particle accellerator that works in deep space), then
adding a particle accellerator to a solar sail just to charge it up
would seem to defeat the purpose. But perhaps a cheap one would do for
the sail, which wouldn't do for direct thrust. I don't know.

With the sail being so hard to develop, maybe the ion rocket is the
way to go in the first place? (For trips beyond Saturn, you need the
ion rocket anyway. It's dark out there.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #103    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:
			BC-TELESCOPE-2takes-01-2 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 28 Jan 83  12:43:37 PST
Date: 28 Jan 83  0045 PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: BC-TELESCOPE-2takes-01-2 
To:   space@MIT-MC

n502  2206  27 Jan 83
    By Albert Sehlstedt, Jr.
    (c) 1983 The Baltimore Sun (Field News Service)
    BALTIMORE - Scientists at the Johns Hopkins University are working
seven days a week on one of the most important astronomical projects
in history, but they have yet to look through a telescope.
    ''So what in the hell are you doing?'' asked Dr.Riccardo Giacconi,
beating a visitor to the same question by half a breath. The
scientist's question was directed at himself and a staff of energetic
astronomers.
    ''This is a great human adventure,'' said Dr. Barry Lasker. ''This
is the astronomical adventure for the rest of this century.''
    ''It's very exciting to be a part of it,'' commented Roger E. Doxsey.
    ''This is the time to push hard,'' Lasker declared with emphasis.
    Giacconi, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, and his
associates are preparing for the 1985 launching of an orbiting
telescope that will look farther into the universe than earthlings
have ever looked before, possibly finding new planets circling
distant suns that shine on other kinds of intelligent life.
    The pace of the work at Hopkins - 12 and 14 hours a day - would
suggest that the launching was set for next Thursday rather than two
years hence.
    The months of unrelenting preparation demanded of the institute's
staff for the ''great human adventure'' is perhaps best understood by
asking yourself how you might operate a 10-ton telescope orbiting the
Earth every 90 minutes at an altitude of 350 miles while dozens of
the world's most prominent astronomers stand in line for a peek.
    One embarrassment to be avoided at all costs is pointing the
telescope in the wrong direction. If the moon got in the way while
Dr. X from Prague or Dr. Y from Peking was attempting to get a
glimpse of a distant galaxy . . . well, it would be awkward.
    The solution? Computers, of course.
    Giacconi held an imaginary space telescope in his hand and simulated
its motions around the Earth, twisting it to look always away from
the home planet; to avoid being blocked by the moon, 240,000 miles
distant; never to look into the sun, 93 million miles away, and
always to keep locked onto the object or objects light years away
that visiting astronomers will want to see.
    The institute is now engaged in extensive work with computer
companies, computer programming specialists and other experts to make
sure that the 43-foot-long telescope performs its acrobatic dance in
orbit so precisely that it will always hold in its field of view that
distant dot in the vastness of space that some astronomer, who may
have traveled halfway around the world, demands to see.
    This requirement raises another vexing question. How do you know
where to point a telescope that, Giacconi pointed out, is looking
into a sky 400,000 times larger than the telescope's field of view at
any one instant in time?
    The pointing choices are endless - but that is part of the problem,
not the solution.
    The answer: ''Guide stars,'' Giacconi said. ''Three stars for
everywhere you look in the sky.''
    Though poets and song writers can be eloquent about the vast numbers
of stars in the heavens, there are not nearly enough of them, with
their positions well known, to keep the space telescope always on
target.
    So, with the help of other astronomical observatories, the Space
Telescope Science Institute is now compiling a catalogue of millions
of stars - reference points in the sky that the telescope's
navigation devices can select instantly to point its lens in
precisely the right direction.
    ''It's quite a challenge,'' said Lasker, who is the institute's
project scientist for the guide star selection system. He noted that
the largest star catalogue previously compiled (by the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory at Harvard University) consists of about
258,000 stars.
    The astronomer said the institute plans to have a catalogue of 20
million stars by March, 1984, a year almost to the day before the
space telescope is to be carried into orbit by one of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's space shuttles.
    It is hard work.
    MORE
    
nyt-01-28-83 0103est
***************

!n504  2223  27 Jan 83
BC-TELESCOPE-1stadd-01-2
    x x x HARD WORK.
    ''It is not only tedious, but it is very demanding,'' Giacconi said.
    ''Everything we do is off the edge of the map,'' Lasker said. ''We
are charting new territory.''
    Aside from these operational problems, Giacconi and his staff
(gradually growing to 200) are dealing regularly with 52 prime
contractors, each of which has an important role to play in the $750
million project that will culminate in the orbital flight of the
telescope.
    ''The space telescope is perhaps the most complicated space
experiment ever done,'' said Giacconi, referring to all the
contractors and government support groups assisting in the project.
    The 51-year-old director of the institute, who was born in Genoa,
Italy, and had been professor of astronomy at Harvard before coming
here, seemed immensely enthused about the space telescope project,
but not awed.
    He was chosen for the post from about 60 candidates by a search
committee of the Association of Universities for Research in
Astronomy (AURA), a consortium of universities that won a NASA
competition to operate the space telescope.
    As part of its proposal to the space agency, AURA selected Johns
Hopkins's Homewood campus for the Space Telescope Science Institute.
Thus, the institute is not a part of Hopkins, only located there.
    Giacconi is now a professor of physics at Hopkins.
    He noted that astronomers selected to use the telescope will not be
chosen arbitrarily by him.
    ''I would last only as long as the legal procedures to throw me out
if I did that,'' he said.
    Instead, the people invited to the institute for observations will
be chosen for the most part on the basis of peer review of their work
- an analysis of the significance of their proposals as judged by
their colleagues in the various fields of astronomy.
    ''We'll seek proposals from everywhere,'' the director said. ''Also,
unorthodox but interesting ideas will be considered.''
     The space telescope, with the inestimable advantage of viewing the
heavens above the distorting veil of the Earth's atmosphere, will be
able to observe 350 times the volume of space that can now be seen
with the largest ground-based optical instruments.
     Put another way, if the telescope were erected in Baltimore it
would be able to read the license plate of an automobile in Boston.
     And what might the telescope see from orbit?
    ''We hope we will be pleasantly surprised by unexpected
discoveries,'' Giacconi said.
    His comment was similar to the responses of other astronomers who,
unlike laymen, seem not to be thinking so much of finding other kinds
of beings or the weird worlds of science fiction, but something else.
    What else? That which the human mind has not imagined; that which
will help everyone on this planet, as Lasker pointed out, to acquire
a fuller understanding of his place in, and relevance to, that
incomprehensibly vast state of existence we call the universe.
    END
    
nyt-01-28-83 0120est
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #104    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 104

Today's Topics:
		       STS-ET into orbit for free?
			      Halleys comet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 29 Jan 83  14:49:19 PST
Date: 29 January 1983 17:32 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: STS-ET into orbit for free?
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

The Jan 28 (Friday) issue of Science has a letter claiming that it
actually takes more energy to toss the external tank (ET) into a
particular spot in the Indian Ocean than it would take to just carry
it along into space. The reason it is dumped in the ocean is because
if just lifted to orbit and not used for anything it'd re-enter at
some random place in a few months just like Skylab and two Russian
satellites did, causing a big PR (public relations) problem. Thus it
seems that if somebody actually had plans for an ET, they could not
only get the ET for free but maybe even get paid to take it (if NASA
were to be fair about it).

Does anybody have more info (confirmation or rebuttal) on this?

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 29 Jan 83  14:49:10 PST
Date: 29 January 1983 17:15 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

This private reply failed, but it may be of some general interest so ...

COMSAT@MIT-MC 01/29/83 16:08:55 Re: Msg of Wednesday, 19 January 1983 04:56 EST
To: REM at MIT-MC
FAILED: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at UCB-C70; Host appears to be permanently down or not accepting mail.
 Failed message follows:
-------
Date: 19 January 1983 04:56 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Halleys comet
To: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm @ UCB-C70

According to the article in Sky&Telescope, looking at the picture and
the legend below it, on Oct 16 it was within the telescope-diffraction
spike range of SAO115101. That star is 8th magnitude, while Halley's
comet was 24th-magnitude at that time. Perhaps by studying the image
in Sky&Telescope and comparing it with star catalogs for that part of
the sky (about 8 degrees NW from Procyon), you can find it. The other
stars in the field, much brighter than the comet, look about a hundred
to a thousand times brighter than the comet, thus about 5 to 9
magnitudes brighter, thus about magnitude 15 thru 19. If you can find
a star catalog with 19th-magnitude limit, you should be able to
compare the image with the catalog and get the "exact" coordinates of
the comet.  Or contact the famous Halley-finders, staff astronomer G.
Edward Danielson and graduate student David C. Jewitt, of Cal Tech.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Jan-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #105    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 105

Today's Topics:
	      resolution claimed in Space Telescope article
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 31 Jan 83  00:46:54 PST
Date: 30 Jan 1983 2202-EST
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: resolution claimed in Space Telescope article
Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11892195730.28.583.2604 at DEC-MARLBORO>

The article on the Space Telescope claimed that if it were set up in
Baltimore it could read a license plate in Boston.  Doesn't sound right
to me.  The resolution of a telescope is limited by diffraction to
angle on the order of the wavelength divided by the diameter
(angular res. (in radians) ~= lambda /diameter).  For the ST that comes
to about 2 micro-radians.  Say that you needed to separate 1 cm objects
at a distance of 500 km in order to read this license plate.  Then you'll
need 20 nano-radian resolution, a hundred times greater than that of the
ST.  Is there some means for vastly increasing resolution, or is this
just wild-eyed journalism?  

John Redford
DEC-Hudson
   --------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Feb-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #106    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 106

Today's Topics:
	      resolution claimed in Space Telescope article
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 31 Jan 83  19:48:20 PST
Date: 31 January 1983 22:45 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: resolution claimed in Space Telescope article
To: VLSI @ DEC-MARLBORO
cc: space @ MIT-AI, "redford@SHORTY" @ UDEL-RELAY

It's impossible to increase resolution beyond the diffraction-limited
resolution except by increasing the diameter of the photon-receiver
(the primary lense or reflector) so the diffraction-limit is better.
You can do this by using two telescopes and merging their light beams,
or by using a pair of mirrors to effectively split one lens or primary
mirror, although this gives you high resolution only along the axis
between the two photon-receiver parts, giving what's called an
inferometer. I doubt they're planning to do that with the space
telescope, although that would maybe be a good idea after they have
tested it in its simple configuration and gotten enough good data that
way. Note that it's hard to form full images in an inferometer
configuration, like for reading license plates, but it's great for
splitting double points of light such as double stars.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Feb-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #107    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:
		  The non-existance of the Space Digest
			 Mass Driver III project
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Date: 22 Feb 1983 21:06-PST
Subject: The non-existance of the Space Digest

Since the TCP change over by MIT-MC, which was the relay machine for
submissions to the Space Digest, on Feb 1, there have been no Digests.  I
have modified the list on MIT-MC so that it tries to send submissions to
me via a relay.  This may work for a while, but will doubtless be quite
unreliable.  The outgoing trip made by the Digests will also be fairly
treacherous.  Still a limited amount of mail may still make it through.
Until the host machine I'm using gets switched over to TCP things will be
quite intermitent.  Also, at least for a while, we won't be getting
submissions from Usenet.  Please bear with me.

	The Moderator
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 1983 12:13-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse at Usc-Ecl
Return-Path: <dietz@USC-CSE>
Subject: Mass Driver III project
To: space at Mit-Mc

As you may know, Dr. O'Neill's Space Studies Institute has been working
on prototype mass drivers.  They have designed two before (MD I and
II).  Recently, O'Neill came up with some exciting new ideas for the
driver that should reduce the complexity and boost the efficiency of
the system.

The new system is called a "pull-only" mass driver.  Before, the drive
coils accelerated the bucket by pulling, then pushing.  Complex
electronics were needed for stabilization and coil triggering.  Changes
in the new system involve:  making the coils self-centering by only
pulling the buckets, eliminating the now unnecessary magnetic guide
strips; increasing the drive coil diameter, allowing much a higher
drive coil/bucket coil diameter ratio, increasing the coupling
efficiency of the coils; making the drive coils independent,
eliminating the need for complex electronic triggering systems.

Projected accelerations are in the range of 1800 to 2000 g's, at least
an order of magnitude better than previous efforts.  Length of the mass
driver scales inversely with the acceleration, reducing the length of
the driver to around 150 meters for lunar escape velocity.

SSI is currently building a prototype 20-coil system 50 cm in length.
It will accelerate a 40 gram bucket (1/10 of a lunar system's
bucket-payload mass; SSI doesn't have a big enough capacitor bank for
the larger payload) to 250 mph.

The first single-coil test was scheduled for January;  I haven't heard
if it worked.  The 20 coil system is scheduled to be completed by March
or April, with May as a deadline.

If you want to contribute to this project, send donations (US dollars only)
to:

	SSI
	195 Nassau Street
	Princeton, NJ  08540

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Feb-83  1149	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #108    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 108

Today's Topics:
			      Mass drivers?
			Modroc Beta Testers Wanted
			     Michener's SPACE
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 23 Feb 83  20:51:30 PST
Date: 23 Feb 1983 2226-EST
From: Hobbit <AWalker.rutgers@UDel-TCP>
Return-Path: <AWALKER@RUTGERS>
Subject: Mass drivers?
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 23-Feb-83 22:41:56-EST (Wed)
To: space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP

This sounds like a fascinating topic, but as I see it there has not been 
a whole lot of detail set forth on the Space digest.  Could someone 
go into a little more detail about what a mass driver is and what's going
on about its development?  I'd love to see discussion about *real* ongoing
space-related research.  After all, this *is* a research network, yes?

_H*

------------------------------

Received: from USC-ECLC by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 24 Feb 83  07:07:58 PST
Received: from MIT-MULTICS by USC-ECLC; Thu 24 Feb 83 07:08:21-PST
Date:  24 February 1983 10:00 est
From:  Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Modroc Beta Testers Wanted
To:  OTA%S1-A at USC-ECLC

I have just completed a package called "Modroc," which is a design
automation system for model rockets.  It will be given out free to
interested parties, especially Jr. High and High School science
teachers, who currently need all the help they can get.  The system is
intended to exploit a common shared enthusiasm for model rockets and
computers by the 10-whatever year old crowd, and help science teachers
demonstrate the close relationship between the computer and space ages.

The system runs on a 48K Apple with one disk.  It consists of two
subsystems.  One is a classic CAD program which draws your design as you
go, knows about Estes parts, and does a whole bunch of consistency
checks to make sure the parts will fit together.  The second subsystem
maintains a design file and does static stability calculations.  It will
either take a fixed design and compute the CP or take a given CG/Static
Static Stability Factor combination and adjust the fin sizes to match.
The system has an open (disk file) interface to make it easy to add
programs of your own.

Before I release the thing for real I would like some experienced model
rocketeers to beta test it for me.  I am particularly interested in
people who have a file of designs for which Barrowman CP calculations
have been done.  If you send me your USMail address (the thing won't go
over the net because of machine language routines) I will send you a
copy.  At worst you will get a free Verbatim disk for your trouble, and
at best you will have the satisfaction of helping produce a few more
engineers and a few less lawyers in the next generation.

------------------------------

Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 28 Feb 83  03:49:58 PST
Date:     27 Feb 83 23:15-EDT (Sun)
From: the Golux <coar.UMass-ECE@UDel-TCP>
Return-Path: <coar.UMass-ECE.UMASS-ECE@UDel-Relay>
Subject:  Michener's SPACE
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 28-Feb-83 00:52:30-EST (Mon)
To: space.umass-ece at UDel-TCP
Cc: coar.umass-ece at UDel-TCP, sf-lovers.umass-ece at UDel-TCP
Via:  UMASS-ECE; 28 Feb 83 0:11-EST

I have just finished reading Michener's 'Space,' and found it
better than I expected. It seems to slow down a bit toward the
end, but that may just be because I'm tired.. It starts off well,
and is fairly captivating for most of the book. He gives what appears
to be a pretty good picture of the history of space exploration
(I'm not really up on this, sorry!), from several different, evolving,
viewpoints. I enjoyed it, and do not regret the money spent. It
strikes me as a darned good contemporary historical novel.

	ken
	coar.umass-ece@udel-relay

P.S.:	It is not really 'science fiction,' nor even 'speculative
	fiction' - but I think SF people might enjoy it if they
	aren't too critical.. k

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Apr-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #109    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 109

Today's Topics:
			       anniversary
			 Reagan's Defense Message
			Solar Electric Propulsion
			     JAS-1 announced
			Watching Shuttle Launches
		      Time machine nearly discovered
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 3 Mar 83  15:21:23 PST
Date: 03 Mar 83  1017 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF%SU-AI@Usc-Ecl>
Return-Path: <RSF%SU-AI@USC-ECL>
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 3-Mar-83 14:46:43-EST (Thu)
Mail-From: ARPANET site SU-AI rcvd at 3-Mar-83 1019-PST
To: space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP(ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) , USC-ECL at UDel-TCP

n102  1857  01 Mar 83
BC-SHUTTLE
New Orbiter Challenger Crippled by Design Defect
By WAYNE BIDDLE
c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - Nearly 11 years after development of the space shuttle's
powerful main engines began, the new orbiter Challenger sits crippled
on its pad at Cape Canaveral because of what officials describe as a
design defect in its engines.
    A 1978 report warned about one of the flawed components that was
recently discovered, but the component slipped through standard
inspection procedures until it arrived at the Kennedy Space Center on
Feb. 4.
    The delay is also attributable to welding problems and a shortage of
spare parts, Congress was told this week by Lt. Gen. James A.
Abrahamson, who is in charge of the shuttle program.
    Abrahamson, the space agency's associate administrator, told a House
Science and Technology subcommittee that the fact various flaws were
discovered while they were still on the ground showed the program's
conservative approach to safety. He blamed tight budgets in the past
for a lack of spare parts, which he said would pose a problem
throughout this year.
    Because all three of Challenger's engines are under repair, no
launching date has been set for the sixth shuttle mission. A
spokesman for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said
technicians were hoping to remount the engines by March 10. A
launching might occur two to three weeks after that, he said.
    The delay from its original Jan. 20 launching date has already cost
NASA at least $1.5 million, with greater cost increases expected
later this year when space center crews will have to work overtime if
shuttle-program commitments are to be met.
    With tight scheduling between missions, all shuttle flights this
year had already been under considerable time pressure. After the
sixth shuttle flight, Challenger's first, has been completed, two
more have been planned before Sept. 30, when the ninth mission is
scheduled to carry the first Spacelab into orbit.
    Challenger's No. 1 engine was removed Feb. 4 because a three-quarter
inch long crack in a hydrogen coolant line allowed potentially
inflammable amounts of gas to leak into the vehicle's aft end. The
engine moved in to replace it was then found to have an oxygen leak
in its heat exchanger, a complex system of coils that helps
pressurize the shuttle's external fuel tank.
    Last Friday a hydrogen leak was discovered on Engine No. 2, in the
same general area of the engine as the leak that occurred on No. 1.
Then, over the weekend, an inspection of Engine No. 3 revealed the
same flaw.
    Although the problem on the No. 1 engine was traced to a tooling
mishap at Rocketdyne, the engine manufacturer in Canoga Park, Calif.,
last weekend's discoveries point to a generic design flaw in new
shuttle engines that will require a thorough technical review,
according to space agency officials.
    Spokesmen at Rocketdyne said the company's program engineers were
not available for comment, because they were preoccupied by the
Challenger's difficulties.
    ''In a broad sense, we are going to revisit all the design changes
that went into the Challenger engines,'' said Walter F. Dankhoff,
director of NASA's propulsion program.
    To handle heavier payloads in the future, Challenger's engines were
designed to operate with more thrust, or lifting power, than those
certified for Columbia, the first operational shuttle.
    Because of larger vibrations that would result on the new engines in
flight, the hydrogen tubes in question were modified to provide more
protection from chafing, Mr. Dankhoff said.
    According to Eugene E. Covert, professor of aeronautics and
astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who headed
a government committee to review the engine program in the late
1970s, a sleeve was brazed, or soldered, onto the lines as a
strengthening element. There is now reason to believe that the
temperature of the braze cannot be controlled well enough to prevent
local overheating and embrittlement of the metal tube underneath.
    Technicians at Cape Canaveral must now remove the reinforced
sections and weld in new tubing. The configuration will then be the
same as on the old Columbia engines, but this means that Challenger's
engines will not be able to run at full thrust.
    ''I assume that by the time higher power is needed on Challenger
flights, they will understand the problem better,'' he said. The
extra power will not be needed until the Defense Department begins
its scheduled flights from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in
1985.
    Full-power thrust was previously scheduled for use on Mission 8,
whose payload is about 10,000 pounds heavier than that of Mission 6.
Although some weight adjustments will be necessary as a result of
smaller performance margins, NASA officials do not foresee major
alterations in the shuttle program, at least in the near term.
    
nyt-03-01-83 2154est
**********

------------------------------

Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 4 Mar 83  13:44:20 PST
Date: 3 Mar 83 10:30:22-PST (Thu)
From: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) npois!houxm!5941ux!kek.berkeley at UDel-TCP,  ( K. E. Kepple)
Return-Path: <knutsen@Usenet>
Subject: anniversary
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 4 Mar 83 1:33-PST
Received: from sri-unix by udel-relay.ARPA ; 4-Mar-83 05:02:24-EST (Fri)
To: physics.sri-unix at UDel-TCP
Article-I.D.: 5941ux.214

           A belated anniversary notice found in the March 
               issue of the McDonald Observatory News:

(March 1) "Today is the 17th anniversary of the first landing of a
man-made object on another planet - the hard landing of the Soviet
spacecraft Venus III on Venus.  Of course, hard landings are not as
informative as gentle ones since the spacecraft is immediately
destroyed on impact.  But the Soviets followed this stunt in the '70s
with a series of soft-landing craft (the Venera series) which gave
us our first glimpse of the sizzling cauldron that i the surface
of Venus."

Ken Kepple
BTL - Holmdel
5941ux!kek

------------------------------

Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 25 Mar 83  09:52:32 PST
Date: Wed 23 Mar 83 23:44:43-PST
From: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH.su-score@UDel-TCP
Return-Path: <CSD.MCGRATH@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Reagan's Defense Message
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 24-Mar-83 04:13:28-EST (Thu)
To: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP
Cc: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) arms-d.mit-mc at UDel-TCP(ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) , poli-sci.rutgers at UDel-TCP

Is this REALLY a commitment to high technology in defense?  That is, is
Reagan really going to put his political muscle and government funds
behind the effort?  Anyone read his defense budget for clues?

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 83 23:36:11-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-Vax
Subject: Solar Electric Propulsion
Article-I.D.: eagle.850
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 26 Mar 83 6:33-PST

Recently, the idea of a solar-powered rocket engine for orbital
maneuvering was proposed within AMSAT (the amateur radio satellite group)
as a way of making an inherently safe engine for a payload (the PACSAT
amateur packet radio satellite) deployed from the space shuttle.

The idea is really quite simple: you carry tanks of water, preheat them
with the proper solar coatings on the (external) tanks, and vaporize the
water into steam with electrical power from the solar cells.  Specific
impulse is quite low, 125-150 sec, but the big advantage here is that it
is MUCH easier to sell to a jittery NASA concerned about "amateurs" flying
hazardous fuels on an expensive manned vehicle.

It turns out that the major limitation for our purpose of a standard GAS
(getaway special) can is volume, not weight, so we can afford to use a lot
of water.  About 40-50kg would be needed to maneuver from the polar orbit
provided by the Landsat Recovery Mission (STS-V2) up to a reasonably
stable one, approximately 800-900 km.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 83 16:24:07-PST (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-Vax
Subject: JAS-1 announced
Article-I.D.: eagle.848
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 26 Mar 83 5:01-PST

Last weekend, JAMSAT and JARL (the Japanese branch of AMSAT and the
Japanese Amateur Radio League) formally announced a project to build an
amateur radio satellite for launch in 1986 aboard a new Japanese launch
vehicle, the H-1 (similar to the American Delta).

The satellite will physically resemble Oscar-8, and carry two
communications payloads.  One will be a Mode J 2m-to-70cm linear
transponder like that on Oscar-8, and the other will be a digital
store-and-forward "mailbox".

The digital half of JAS-1 will be in addition to the similar PACSAT
project being planned in the US for one of three launch possibilities:
aboard a Space Services launcher, a Delta with Landsat D', or aboard the
Landsat 4 Recovery shuttle mission from Vandenburg.

Discussions have been underway between AMSAT and JAMSAT for some time to
establish common modulation, protocols and user interfaces wherever
possible for PACSAT and the digital portion of JAS-1 in order to minimize
user inconvenience.

Launch of JAS-1 is planned for early 1986 into a 1500 km altitude, 50
degree inclination orbit.  Note that this orbit will NOT be
sun-synchronous, unlike that planned for PACSAT.

Phil Karn, KA9Q
Asst. VP Engineering, AMSAT

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 83 15:44:23-PST (Sat)
To: space@mit-mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn@Berkeley.arpa
Subject: Watching Shuttle Launches
Article-I.D.: eagle.828
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 14 Mar 83 19:16-PST
 
Back around the beginning of the year, I wrote a letter to the Kennedy
Space Center public affairs office requesting a car pass to see STS-7
(STS-6 had already been booked up).  Today I finally got a postcard back
with the following items checked:
 
"NASA has announced that the 7th Space Shuttle launch will occur no
earlier than late May.  A pass (for a vehicle no larger than a van) will
be mailed to you about three weeks before launch.  The pass will enable
vehicle occupants to view the launch from a site on the Kennedy Space
Center.  Please keep informed of launch status through your local news
media."
 
Just thought people would be interested in what to expect if they
applied for a pass.
 
Phil Karn

------------------------------

Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 4 Apr 83  14:39:33 PST
Date: 4 Apr 1983 9:19-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse.usc-ecl at UDel-TCP
Return-Path: <dietz@USC-CSE>
Subject: Time machine nearly discovered
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 4-Apr-83 14:21:38-EST (Mon)
To: space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP
Via:  Usc-Cse; 04 Apr 83 09:30:07

A very fast pulsar (rotation time about 1.5 msec) was recently
discovered.  Its surface is moving at about .13c, assuming it is of the
usual size.  If it rotated just 3 times faster it would be a Tipler
time machine (except that Tipler's machine is a cylinder, but this may
not be important).  Tipler's machine, as you may know, is a long, very
dense cylinder about 10 km in diameter, with a circumferential velocity
of about half the speed of light.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Apr-83  0313	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #110    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:
				 Shuttle
			      watching STS-6
			    How's Cosmo Carl?
		      Pioneer 10 set to make history
			Talk on U.S. Space Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 6 Apr 83  20:32:03 PST
Date:      4 Apr 83 9:30:35-PST (Mon)
From: Mike Iglesias <iglesias.uci.rand-relay@UDel-TCP>
Return-Path: <Iglesias.UCI.UCI@Rand-Relay>
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 5 Apr 83 23:34:58 EST (Tue)
Subject:   Shuttle
To: space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP
Via:  UCI; 5 Apr 83 20:24-PDT

Anybody know if the space shuttle transmissions are being rebroadcast
on amateur radio?  If so, what frequencies?

------------------------------

Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 6 Apr 83  21:03:50 PST
Date:  6 April 1983 14:08 est
From: York.mit-multics at UDel-TCP (William M. York)
Return-Path: <York.Multics@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 6 Apr 83 16:50:54 EST (Wed)
Subject:  watching STS-6
To: Space-Enthusiasts.mit-mc at UDel-TCP
In-Reply-To:  Message of 5 April 1983 06:02 est from Ted Anderson

Three friends and I drove down to Cape Canaveral from Boston this
weekend to watch the shuttle launch.  This was my second launch (the
first was STS-2), but this time we had  a vehicle pass for the viewing
area inside KSC.  We were still about 5 miles away (next time I'm aiming
for the VIP/press area), but the view was great.  My 410mm camera lens
provided a detailed enough view to see the NASA logo on Challenger's
wing, and many of the people there had telescopes which they were
usually willing to share.  The weather was perfect (I have a bit of a
sunburn) and the launch was spectacular.

This was a sort of last-minute trip, so when I called KSC they told me
that they were all out of vehicle passes for the public.  After a bit of
brainstorming, I thought of calling my governmental representatives. Tip
O'Neil's office didn't know what a space shuttle was, let alone how to
get a pass to see one, but Senator Kennedy's staff came through in
amazingly short order (he's got my vote).

All in all a very worthwhile experience.  Does anyone know when the
first night launch (originally scheduled for STS 6 last January, I
think) will be?

------------------------------

Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 8 Apr 83  18:48:23 PST
Date:     8 Apr 83 13:51-EST (Fri)
From: Charles Weems <weems.umass-cs@UDel-TCP>
Return-Path: <weems.umass-cs.UMASS-CS@UDel-Relay>
Subject:  How's Cosmo Carl?
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 8-Apr-83 20:29:14-EST (Fri)
To: space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP
Via:  UMASS-CS; 8 Apr 83 20:18-EST

    Some time back, I heard a news report that Carl Sagan was in serious
condition, suffering complications after having his appendix removed.  In
their usual "fire and forget" approach to journalism the networks failed
to follow up on the story.  Has anybody heard how he's doing?

                              chip weems

------------------------------

Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 12 Apr 83  18:39:46 PST
Date: Tuesday, 12 April 1983 20:49:59 EST
From: David.Smith.cmu-cs-ius at UDel-TCP
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 12 Apr 83 20:51:42 EST (Tue)
Subject: Pioneer 10 set to make history
To: space.mc at UDel-TCP, hpm at UDel-TCP
Message-Id: <1983.4.13.1.45.10.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

>From Flight International, 9 April 1983:

	Pioneer 10 is due to cross Neptune's orbit on June 13, after
	which it effectively will have left the solar system--the
	first man-made object to do so.  It was launched in 1972 and
	was the first spacecraft to fly past Jupiter.  Pioneer 10 will
	be roughly 4,500 million kilometers from Earth when it crosses
	Neptune's orbit.  Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory continues
	to receive some useful data from the probe.

------------------------------

Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 14 Apr 83  16:35:24 PST
Date: 14 Apr 1983 1104-PST
From: Alan R Katz <KATZ.usc-isif@UDel-TCP>
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 14 Apr 83 14:08:28 EST (Thu)
Subject: Talk on U.S. Space Policy
To: bboard.usc-isib at UDel-TCP, bboard.usc-ecl at UDel-TCP
Cc: katz.usc-isif at UDel-TCP, space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP

OASIS presents:


	UNITED STATES SPACE POLICY

	Rep. George Brown (D-CA)

Rep. Brown will speak on his National Space Policy Act
of 1983, and the importance of a strong civilian space
program.  The bill advocates that the US should maintain
leadership in space science and technolgy and develop
and demonstrate advanced technology capabilities.


Saturday, April 30, 1983
7:00 PM
Kinsey Auditorium
California Museum of Science and Industry
Exposition Park, Los Angeles

Admission is Free  (ISI'ers, there is a flyer with a map
		    on my office window)

(OASIS phone machine:  (213)374-1381)



				Alan

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-May-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #111    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:
				Dr. Sagan
			   Space station funds
			      O'Neill's talk
		  Firing bullets out of the solar system
			       Comet 1983d
			 STS-9 and Amateur Radio
			    COMET IRAS NO TAIL
		    Re: Another onepage comet2! - (nf)
			 Another onepage comet2!
			   Ariane L-6 postponed
			Escaping the solar system
		Re: Pioneer 10 leaves solar system - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 1983 0601-PST
From: Henry W Miller <Miller@Sri-Nic>
Subject: Dr. Sagan

	Last I heard, Dr. Sagan was due to be released, and was in
good spirits.  This is amazing, since he must have lost HUNDREDS
of MILLIONS of blood cells.

	On this subject (I am sure this crosses over to INFO-MUSIC
and SF-LOVERS), on the final (I think) episode of COSMOS, while
riding in the spaceship, he did a full power retreat from an
impending Super-Nova.  The background music was "Run Like Hell"
from Pink Floyd's "The Wall".

	Cheers,

-HWM

------------------------------

Date: 17 April 1983 13:57 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM.mit-mc@UDel-TCP>
Subject: Space station funds
To: RMS.mit-mc at UDel-TCP
Cc: SPACE.mit-mc at UDel-TCP

Well, I'm in favor of development of space, the more the better,
but can you cite specific info about why $16E6 is enough to do something
specific that $12E6 isn't? What critical task would be cut out if we had
only the latter amount instead of the former? I hate to send random "more
money" messages to congress without good solid reasoning.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 1983 10:25-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse.usc-ecl at UDel-TCP
Subject: O'Neill's talk
To: space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP

I've already mentioned this talk elsewhere (the Geostar message), so
I'll omit that part.

Dr. O'Neill gave a talk at Caltech on April 21.  He presented some
material from his book "2081".  Some highlights and predictions:

(1) He thinks that private aircraft may become as common as private
automobiles are today.  What will make this possible is increasing
automation, both in the manufacture of light planes (which are essentially
handmade today) and in their control.

(2) SSI has built and installed 5 coils (totaling about 12.5 cm in length)
of Mass Driver III.  You will be able to see it at the Princeton/SSI
conference on Space Manufacturing May 9-12 at Princeton University.

(3) Rockwell is winding down its study of the reaction rates in the
chemical processes for extracting materials from lunar soil.  The results
are positive.  Dr. O'Neill relates that NASA has done paper studies of
the reactions for 10 years (!) but never got around to laboratory
experiments.

(4) O'Neill gave a similar talk at IBM (I believe at San Jose).  He
stated that he thought that there would be 200 million people traveling
between earth and space colonies in the year 2081 (1/2 of the current
yearly number of airline passengers) and was chided for being too
conservative.  The IBM'ers thought 2050 was a better estimate!  O'Neill
has stated elsewhere that within 200 years more people will be living
in space than on earth.

(5) O'Neill pointed out something that I hadn't realized:  lunar soil
is, on the average, 40% oxygen (I didn't realize it was so high).
Oxygen will be very cheap in space (a good thing for those who worry
about paying their air bills).  This also means that water will not be
too expensive to put in earth orbit:  simply ship up liquid hydrogen
and burn it (you'd want to use the energy, of course).  About 8/9 of
the mass of water is in the oxygen.  The rest of the soil is silicon,
aluminum, titanium, iron and less common elements.  Rare are hydrogen,
carbon, nitrogen and halogens; these will have to be shipped up from
earth (and recycled).

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 18 May 1983 13:40:08 EDT
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@MIT-MC>
cc: space@mc, hpm
Subject: Firing bullets out of the solar system

Re the story of a rocket 20 years ago which shot bullets out of the
solar system.

>From "An alternative launching medium," an article about railguns in the
April, 1982 IEEE Spectrum:

	Chemical guns are limited by the speed of the expanding gas
	to practical velocities of about 2 km/s, although 8 km/s has
	been attained in multistage laboratory guns using hydrogen as
	the final propellant.

Suppose we take that 8 km/s figure and add it to low earth orbit velocity.
The total comes to about 35,400 mph.  It sticks in my mind that the
Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft were launched away from the Earth at
about 37,000 mph.  Didn't they also use the Jovian gravity assist to
get them out of the solar system?

If we take the 2 km/s figure and add it to low earth orbital velocity,
we get 22000 mph, which won't get you to the moon.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 83 13:25:47-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Comet 1983d

Observation report of Comet IRAS-Araki-Alcock May 11 9:00 pm EST.
Location: Indianapolis, Ind. (north side of town)

Comet 1983d was observed last night by four individuals from the Indy area.
The skies were very hazy and it was difficult to see many stars with the
naked eye, but the comet was spotted approx. 4 degrees SW of the beehive
cluster (M-44) in cancer. I bet someone will get a sweet picture containing
the comet and M-44 published in S&T or Astronomy.

To reply to the net discussions on observations, I did observe the comet on
the night of the 10th with a 12.5 inch newtonian. There was no detectable
trace of a tail, but the nucleas was very bright and I did notice that the
center of the coma was offset from the nucleus away from the sun. This is
something which I would expect to occur.

Does anyone out there in net.land have any more orbit data on the comet???
Will it be visible when it heads away from the sun and will it be a short
or long period comet?? Perhaps there is not enough accurate data yet to answer
these questions.

					Ron Meyer
					American Bell - Indy
					inuxa!rrm

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 83 15:27:06-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!mhtsa!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9 and Amateur Radio

For an hour each day of STS-9, Owen Garriet will operate
a small amateur radio station out of the Columbia.  He
will transmit between 145.510 and 145.770 MHz and receive
between 144.910 and 145.470 MHz.  Output power will be
5 watts.

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 83 13:30:38-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: COMET IRAS NO TAIL

	Looking at the photo's I just got back from Kodak, comet
IRAS- et. al has no tail. As previously observered by Ron Meyer
the comet's coma is not symmetric but no tail was recorded. It
has a sweet stellar like center.( I like stellar nucleus they make
dim comet easier to find).

				Fred

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 83 1:21:55-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Another onepage comet2! - (nf)
Organization:Hewlett-Packard, Corvallis OR

	Would it be possible to post the expected magnitudes for 1983e?
Will this be visible to the naked eye?

						...hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 83 19:54:04-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!hao!kpno!stoner @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Another onepage comet2!
Organization:Kitt Peak Natl. Obs.  Tucson, Az.

Just when you thought it was safe to go outside again...we have not one,
but TWO MORE COMETS in the sky!

One is Comet P/Kopff, which has been discussed by others on the net. (For
those of you who missed the articles, check the May issue of SKY & TELESCOPE
for more info).

But the other is a new one:

		Comet Sugano-Saigusa-Fujikawa (1983e)

Latest ephemeris is:

		DATE		R. Ascen.		Declination

	May 11.0 (UT)		1h 27.6m		+39 deg. 59'
	May 16.0		1h 14.1m		+40 deg. 47'
	May 21.0		1h 01.5m		+41 deg. 07'
	May 26.0		0h 48.3m		+41 deg. 06'

		(From latest IAU telegram)

BUT>>>> the best is yet to come! On the 21st of May, Comet 1983e is expected
to be 7th magnitude, and by the 12th of June, it'll 4th or 5th magnitude
AS IT PASSES 0.06 AU. FROM EARTH!!! (Shades of IRAS-Araki-Alcock, eh?).
And...rumor/gossip has it that this comet will occult the Andromeda galaxy
(M31) on the night of 05 June or 06 June...don't mark your calendars yet,
though--I'll post the date when its confirmed.

More later....                  Jeff S.
				Kitt Peak Public Information
				kpno!stoner

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 83 17:35:08-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Ariane L-6 postponed

In an announcement that was no big surprise to veteran AMSATers,
the European Space Agency today announced that the launch of Ariane L-6
(the one to carry ECS-1 and Amsat Phase 3-B) has been postponed until at
least mid June "for additional tests."  The time is needed for
"continued endurance tests of the turbopump on the rocket's third stage."

Inside info from AMSAT is that there have also been delays in
qualifying the guidance systems for flight.  Either of these problems
could result in further slips past June.

Phil Karn, KA9Q/2

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 19 May 1983 13:18:50 EDT
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: rem@mc, space@mc
cc: hpm
Subject: Escaping the solar system

If we plug the Newtonian equation of gravitation into the formula for work
(integral of force times distance), we find that

		Ve = sqrt( 2GM / r )

where Ve is escape velocity, G the gravitational constant, M the mass of
the primary (considering the satellite mass to be insignificant next to it),
and r the distance from the center of the primary.  By a little more
diddling around, we find that

		V0 = sqrt( Ve^2 + Vf^2 )

where v0=initial velocity, Ve=escape velocity, and Vf=final velocity
(or velocity at infinity).  Furthermore, by plugging the gravitational
equation into the equation for circular motion, we get

		Vc = sqrt( GM / r)

which shows that escape velocity is sqrt(2) times the circular velocity at
that altitude.

Now consider the problem of firing a spacecraft out of the solar system.
The earth's heliocentric velocity is 66700 mph, so solar escape velocity
from here is 94300 mph.  The difference is 27600 mph, which is the
velocity the spacecraft must have after escaping earth.  Earth-escape
velocity from low altitude is 24700 mph.  This makes the velocity
required to escape the sun from low earth orbit sqrt(24700^2 + 27600^2),
or 37000 mph.  Since this is the velocity at which the Pioneers and
Voyagers were launched, it follows that they would just escape the sun
without gravitational assist from Jupiter or Saturn.

The news releases about Pioneer 10 stated that it is traveling at
30000 mph.  I think it is about 2 billion miles from the sun, which
is 21.5 astronomical units.  So the escape velocity from where it is
now is sqrt(1/21.5) * 94300 mph, or 20300 mph.  Hence, the gravitational
assist it got from Jupiter is worth 10000 mph right now.  (This figure
climbs as the spacecraft gets farther out.)

		David Smith
		David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 83 11:38:52-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!linus!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!rayssd!sdl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Pioneer 10 leaves solar system - (nf)

I certainly would consider the Apollo missions interplanetary IF they
had exceeded the earth's escape velocity, but they didn't quite.
(That was why they slowed down considerably until reaching the vicinity
of the moon; if the moon had not been there, they would probably
have continued orbiting the earth.)

Steve Litvintchouk
Raytheon

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-May-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #112    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 112

Today's Topics:
				  TDRS-1
			       Comet 1983e
			   Meeting announcement
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 May 83 15:03:16-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: TDRS-1
Organization:Bell Labs, Murray Hill

NASA today reached the midpoint of the TDRS-1 salvage effort,
raising the satellite's orbit to 17,324 by 22,105 miles.  They
say there are still 8 or 9 burns left to go.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 21 May 83  13:27:48 PDT
Date: 21 May 83  1327 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
To:   space@MIT-MC

a016  2251  18 May 83
PM-Space-Citizens,550
Report Recommends Free Space Shuttle Seats for Some Civilians
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Want to fly in space as a private citizen? Your
chances of reaching this dream are better if you are a writer,
broadcaster or educator.
    There will be seats for non-astronauts on the space shuttle in three
or four years, and a special task force recommended on Wednesday that
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration make them available
to civilians at no charge.
    Those selected for early flights, it said, should be professional
observers able to provide the public with insights into space flight
and the role of humans in space.
    The first, the task force said, should be communicators, such as
reporters and authors, who ''could provide a comprehensive visual
mission history as well as real-time reports.'' This group also could
include poets, artists or photographers.
    Technical writers should be among the early travelers, to ''provide
a written and interpretive history that also covers the science,
technical and institutional achievements that make the space program
feasible,'' the group's report said.
    High priority, it said, also should be given to educators who could
later instruct students ''on the science, engineering and biological
principles integral to manned space flight.''
    Other professions would follow, but none of the citizen passengers
should be permitted to profit from the experience and there should be
a provision that any money earned be donated to charity, it said.
Whether foreigners should be included would be a NASA decision.
    The report was presented to the NASA Advisory Council by Dr. John E.
Naugle, a scientist who heads the Task Force for the Study of Private
Citizens on the Shuttle. Naugle, a former NASA official, is an
executive of the Fairchild Space and Electronic Corp.
    ''We sought the views of a wide cross section of people,'' Naugle
said. ''We concluded that we are ready to take another step to open up
space travel. ...''
    ''I feel humans eventually will work and live in space and this
program would help NASA build toward that goal,'' he said.
    Naugle said Congress would have to pass legislation allowing
citizens to fly because NASA's charter does not permit it to carry
passengers.
    The report concluded that shuttle flight is not particularly
stressful, that medical requirements would not be stringent and that
outsiders would not pose an undue safety or mission risk as long as
they were carefully selected and trained.
    Citizen candidates would train for five or six months and during
that time would be carefully evaluated for compatibility with the
astronauts who would fly with them.
    ''By and large, most astronauts are in favor of this and feel it is
the next logical step,'' Naugle stated.
    Naugle said the candidate selection process should focus on the
probable productivity of the observer and the widest dissemination of
the resulting information.
    He said candidates would have to submit proposals on why he or she
wanted to fly.
    Some council members suggested provision should be made to fly NASA
managers and those who helped design the shuttle so they could
provide technical expertise that might improve the spaceship. Naugle
said he assumed the agency would make such a provision.
    NASA will be operating four shuttles in 1985 and expects to launch
24 flights a year by 1987. Each ship can carry seven people, but many
missions will require only four working astronauts.
    
ap-ny-05-19 0151EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 83 8:22:50-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Comet 1983e

Well gang,
	what's the current status of comet Sugano-Salgusa-Fujikawa ?
Will it occult M-31 or won't it?? Also, it appears to me that it may be
difficult to observe because Andromeda is rising in the morning (I'm not
exactly sure what time) and the view may be washed out by early morning
twilight. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

					Ron Meyer
					American Bell
					inuxa!rrm

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 83 9:59:38-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Meeting announcement

The following is courtesy of Tom Clark, W3IWI, Amsat president:

Meeting Announcement:

For those of you interested in Weather Satellites,  Direct Broad-
cast TV, APT, etc., the following meeting might be of interest:

    International Direct Broadcast Services Users' Conference
                         June 7-10,1983
                          Sheraton Inn
                        New Carrolton, MD

June 7:
0900-1000: Introduction
               John McElroy (NOAA) & Shelby Tilford (NASA)
1000-1020: Overview of Direct Broadcast User Community
               Rob't Popham (NOAA)
1040-1200: Polar Satellites -- HRPT, APT, Sounder broadcasts, etc
               Panel
1400-1600: Continuation of Morning Panel
1600-1700: Vendor Presentations

June 8:
0900-1200: Geostationary Satellites -- VISSR, VAS, WEFAX etc.
               Panel
1400-1600: Continuation of Morning Panel    
1600-1700: Vendor Presentations
1830-2030: Special Social Event at GSFC Rec Center

June 9:  
USER APPLICATIONS SESSIONS
0900-1200: Government Applications
1400-1500: Academic Applications
1500-1600: Amateur Applications

June 10:
0900-1200: Open Forum

For  more  details  contact John Kamowski,  NASA/GSFC  Code  974, 
Greenbelt  MD 20771 or phone John at  (301)344-5083.  Mention  my 
name for special treatment!

Reservations at Sheraton Inn : (800)638-8586


Some  of the interesting topics will include the role of the user 
if/when the weather satellites are "sold" to industry, etc. Might 
be very interesting.


73, Tom

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-May-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #113    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 113

Today's Topics:
			Ariane L-6 Launch Date Set
			   Amsat Phase 3-B info
			 Visit of the Enterprise
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 May 83 16:25:43-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Ariane L-6 Launch Date Set

ESA has announced that it has set a launch date of 16 June for Ariane L-6
which will carry ECS-1 and AMSAT Phase 3-B.  This date is subject to a flight
readiness review on 31 May.  The AMSAT crew will be returning
to French Guiana for final flight preparations tomorrow (25 May)
starting with the loading of the hypergolic kick motor fuels.

This could be it, gentlemen!  Naturally, I won't really believe it until
I'm listening to the countdown...

Phil Karn, KA9Q
Asst. VP Eng, AMSAT

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 83 1:23:22-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Amsat Phase 3-B info

With the launch date of AMSAT Phase 3-B rapidly approaching, I will be
posting a flurry of information to the net.  Rather than double-post
this to both net.space and net.ham-radio, I will post it only on the
latter.  Anyone interested should subscribe to net.ham-radio.

Phil

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 26 May 83  01:31:36 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 26 May 83 1:18-PDT
Date: 24 May 83 11:22:34-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Visit of the Enterprise
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2982

     Does anyone that subscribes to net.columbia know any details of the

visit of the shuttle Enterprise, to Ottawa,Canada from June 7-10?
I sent a similar posting out to net.general about two weeks ago,and,so
far, I have received no positive responses.If you know any further details
of the visit of the Enterprise,please make a posting to  net.columbia.
I received several inquiries from my recent posting, and many eastern Canadians
would like to know the details,so that they know whether to go to Ottawa,or
not.
                   Thanks in advance,
                   Miles Leech
                   utzoo!miles

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-May-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #114    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 114

Today's Topics:
		       8086 Processor for Spacelab?
		     Re: 8086 Processor for Spacelab?
			     Re: Comet 1983e
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 May 83 22:11:57-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!amd70!tc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: 8086 Processor for Spacelab?

     There is an article in the May issue of Computer Design which describes
an 8086 based flight computer designed for Spacelab.  The author is
William Connell Gibson and the title is "Zero-G Processing - Computing
Aboard Spacelab".

     Here is a condensation of Table 3 "General Specifications for..."

8086/8087/8089           "tri-processor"
64K or 128K EPROM  (the photo appears to show eight sockets)
128K Dynamic RAM   (single error correcting with 8206)
2K Static RAM    (funny size for a 16-bit processor, must be bipolar)
48 Bits Parallel I/O (2 X 8255A)  Can look like IBM/360 I/O Interface
Two DMA Ports  (Using 8089)
RS-232 Serial Port (8251A)
Interrupts based on 2 X 8259A
Six Counter Timers (2 x 8253)

    This is a pretty nice computer and the author points out that there
is lots of software around.  It shouldn't be too difficult to get
something on the other end of an IBM/360 I/O Interface to pretend to
be a disc...

   I couldn't find anything in the article about NASA qualification or
blessing.  Can anyone shed any light?

			Tom Crawford
			...decwrl!amd70!tc

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 83 19:15:04-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: 8086 Processor for Spacelab?

Such a processor for Spacelab is probably quite appropriate.  Many of
the usual problems facing spacecraft computers go away when used on the
Shuttle:

Radiation hardening - the low orbit, short mission and thick
shuttle walls minimize radiation damage.

Power consumption - the multi-kilowatt fuel cells and the short mission
duration allow you to use technologies other than CMOS.

Reliability - the short mission duration and the availability of human
repairmen and possibly spare parts make this less critical.  Also, since
the safety of the shuttle and its crew isn't at stake, you can afford
to be less conservative.

What we're beginning to see is the Shuttle's "indirect" payoff - the
ability to cost reduce payloads and save on overall mission costs.
There has been very little opportunity as yet for this to happen.

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 83 11:11:42 PDT (Wednesday)
From: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Comet 1983e

Two ephemerides I have seen show the comet going in front of Andromeda 
galaxy (M-31) on May 28 (not the following week, as one message I 
saw stated).  Because the comet is still moving slowly, it will take 
many hours to cross.  This is fortunate, since the time of the comet 
being centered on M-31 will probably occur during US daylight hours 
on the 28th.  The ephemerides are expected to have some error in them 
because the comet has not been tracked long enough, so it wouldn't 
hurt to look a day early.  

Andromeda was up reasonably high long before dawn a week ago when I 
spotted the comet, and it's getting slightly further before dawn every 
day.  Nearly full moon will shed some unwanted light on the scene, but it 
will be quite a distance away, so a small telescope or possibly binoculars 
should be adequate if your are away from city lights.

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-May-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #115    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 115

Today's Topics:
		    Map an Asteroid! (LONG message)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 27 May 83  18:08:21 PDT
Date: 27 May 83  1807 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>
Subject: Map an Asteroid! (LONG message)  
To:   space@MIT-MC

 26-May-83  1715	MSK@SU-SCORE.ARPA 	Map an Asteroid! (LONG message)
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with TCP/SMTP; 26 May 83  17:14:18 PDT
Date: Thu 26 May 83 17:01:53-PDT
From: Michael S. Kenniston <MSK@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Map an Asteroid! (LONG message)
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA

Here's a chance to do some  real astronomical research, right in  your
own backyard, without  any specialized equipment. 

                  Help Examine A Mysterious Asteroid:
                The Planetary Society's Pallas Project
                          by Clark Chapman

    As asteroids orbit  the Sun,  they occasionally  pass directly  in
front of a distant star, as seen  from the Earth.  Very rarely, it  is
one of the few thousand stars visible to the unaided eye and the  star
blinks out.  Just  such an event  will happen late  in the evening  of
Saturday, May  28, 1983,  when the  second largest  asteroid,  Pallas,
passes  in  front  of  one  of  the  brightest  stars  in  the   small
constellation called Vulpecula.  The shadow of Pallas, as cast by  the
star 1 Vulpeculae, will cut a 350-mile-wide swath across the  southern
United States.  If you are in its  path, the star -- which is  between
4th and 5th magnitude -- will blink out for up to 45 seconds.  (Pallas
itself is far away and dark in  color, so it is much fainter than  the
star.)

    Planetary Society  members can  participate in  a simple  backyard
project valuable to our  understanding of asteroids.   The goal is  to
watch the star at  the appointed time  (just before midnight,  Central
Daylight Time)  and  to time  its  disappearance and  reappearance  as
accurately as possible.  If enough people across the country make such
timings, a map can  be made of the  outline of Pallas' shadow,  which,
after all, is the shape of  Pallas itself.  A number of asteroids  and
small moons are not spheres; Pallas might be among these.

    The project is  ready-made for members  of The Planetary  Society.
Normally, an asteroid like Pallas appears as a point of light in  even
the largest telescopes; the only way to resolve its shape is to  study
its fleeting shadows cast by  starlight.  Usually, occulted stars  are
so faint that complex telescopic instruments are required; with only a
few astronomers observing, large gaps are left in our knowledge of the
asteroid's shape.  Just such an occultation in 1978 showed that Pallas
is about 540  kilometers in  diameter, but  its true  shape remains  a
mystery.  A  decade ago,  the small  asteroid Eros  occulted a  bright
naked-eye star, but  its shadow was  so small that  only a few  people
chanced to be in the right spots to see the event.

                The Path of Shadow

    In May, millions of people will  be in the path of Pallas'  shadow
and YOU could be one of them.  Perhaps even more exciting, this  event
may help show  whether or not  Pallas has a  large satellite  orbiting
about it,  as  some  astronomers believe.   Several  years  ago,  some
Arizona  astronomers  developing  a  new  technique  (called   speckle
interferometry) for taking pictures of very tiny astronomical  objects
announced that Pallas may have a  large moon.  More recently, a  group
of planetary scientists from Harvard obtained similar data, but  they
doubt that a moon exists.  Last year the Arecibo Radar Observatory  in
Puerto Rico bounced a  radar echo off Pallas  for the first time,  but
there was  no  echo from  a  satellite.  However,  radar  echoes  from
distant Pallas are so exceedingly weak that even a sizable moon  could
have been missed.

    May 28 provides an  ideal opportunity to  discover whether or  not
Pallas has a moon.  Planetary Society members throughout North America
(and Central America, too)  should look for the  star 1 Vulpeculae  to
blink out for a few seconds  anytime within 20 minutes on either  side
of the  predicted time  for Pallas  itself.  Such  an observation,  if
confirmed by several  independent observers, would  provide the  first
real proof of an  asteroidal satellite.  The  absence of any  evidence
for other objects near Pallas, on the other hand, would cast doubt  on
the earlier reports that Pallas has a moon.

    It is  very  simple  to  participate  in  this  Planetary  Society
project.  All  you  need  is  an accurate  watch,  good  eyes,  and  a
willingness to stay up  late on a Saturday  night.  You should have  a
small pair of binoculars or opera glasses, too: The star 1  Vulpeculae
is not very bright and the sky will be moonlit.  Also useful would  be
a lawn chair so that you can gaze heavenwards in comfort.  If you have
a portable cassette tape recorder,  you could make a permanent  record
of your observations.

                To Find the Star

    First, you  need to  find the  star.  Use  the star-chart  printed
below.  [If you  have a  real star-chart,  it will  obviously be  more
accurate.]  Find the famous  "summer triangle" high  to the east:  the
three brilliant stars Vega (Alpha Lyrae), Altair (Alpha Aquilae),  and
Deneb (Alpha Cygni,  which is  at the  "top" of  the Northern  Cross).
Draw an imaginary  line between  Vega and  Altair; just  to the  lower
right of the point  where that line intersects  a line drawn down  the
extended length of  the Northern  Cross, you  will see  a faint  star.
That is it: 1 Vulpeculae!  Find some  of the other faint stars in  the
region, too,  to  be  sure you  are  looking  at the  right  star.   1
Vulpeculae may be found, alternatively, exactly half-way between  Beta
Cygni, the famous star at the  bottom of the Northern Cross, and  Zeta
Aquilae.

    Next, you  need  an  accurate  timepiece.   You  can  measure  the
DURATION of any  blink-outs with a  stopwatch.  But it  would also  be
helpful to know the EXACT  times of disappearance and reappearance  to
the nearest  second, or  half-second if  possible.  You  can set  your
digital watch using time signals from the National Bureau of Standards
radio station, WWV.  It broadcasts continuously at 2.5, 5, 10, 15  and
20 megahertz on shortwave.  Inexpensive WWV receivers can be purchased
at electronic supply stores.   Or you can hear  WWV receivers just  by
dialing 303-499-7111 an hour  or two before  the event, provided  your
watch will  keep  good time  until  the  event.  If  you  record  your
observations on tape, you  or a friend should  put some timechecks  on
the tape within a few minutes of the event: for example, "The time  is
11:52 ... now!"

    To be useful, your report must include one more critical piece  of
information: where  you are  located.  Try  to find  the latitude  and
longitude of your observation post to  the nearest 10 seconds of  arc,
if possible,  from a  good local  map (such  as the  U. S.  Geological
survey topographic quadrangles, available at your local library or  at
a county government  office).  If you  cannot find a  map, report  the
street  address  or  other  description  of  your  observing  location
accurate to at  least a  quarter of  a mile.   Mail a  report of  your
observations, WHETHER YOU  SEE THE STAR  BLINK OUT OR  NOT, to  Pallas
Project, P.O.Box  91687,  Pasadena,  CA 91109.   We  will  report  the
results in "The Planetary Report" later this year.  Be sure to include
the following information:

    1) Your name and address.
    2) Your observing location (accurate to 10 seconds of arc or
        1/4 mile).
    3) Source of time and estimated accuracy (e.g. "WWV via
        telephone at 10 p.m., timed with quartz watch accurate to 5
        seconds per week; time good to 1/2 second").
    4) Duration when you were attentively observing the star for
        possible blink-outs (e.g. "Observing from 11:41 p.m. to
        12:15 a.m. CDT, except for 1 minute about 12:05").
    5) Comment on equipment used (e.g. stopwatch, binoculars,
        tape-recorder, USGS map), sky conditions (clouds, haze,
        etc.) and other factors that will help us evaluate your
        report.  For EACH observed blink-out of the star, if any,
        provide the following information (or report that no blink-
        outs were observed):
    6) Duration of disappearance, in seconds, and estimated accuracy
        (e.g. "34 1/2 seconds, accurate to 1/2 second").
    7) Disappearance time.
    8) Reappearance time.

                Predictions

    It is not  possible to  predict accurately the  path that  Pallas'
shadow will take.  It is possible  that the path will miss the  United
States entirely.  Better predictions will  be available in May.   Call
the Planetary Society Information Line (213-793-4328 from east of  the
Mississippi, 213-793-4294  from west  of the  Mississippi) during  the
week before the event for recent  up-dates on the most probably  path.
[Updated  probable   path:   Georgia,   Northern   Florida,   Alabama,
Mississippi, Lousiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Northern Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, California from L.A. south.   Could possibly be as far  north
as St.   Louis,  or as  far  south as  the  southern part  of  Texas.]
Remember that ANYONE may be in the path of a satellite of Pallas!

    The predicted times for the event are not likely to be in error by
more than a minute or two.  The shadow should hit the east coast about
12:56 a.m. EDT (0456 GMT) in the early morning of May 29; it will exit
the west coast  of California or  Mexico about 3  minutes later,  9:59
PDT, May 28.  Whether or not you choose to hunt for the satellite, you
should be watching carefully for the Pallas event from about 12:50  to
1:05 a.m. EDT.

    I cannot guarantee that the project will be a success.  We may  be
unlucky and the shadow may pass across the Gulf of Mexico, beyond even
the Planetary  Society members  observing  from Florida  and  southern
Texas.  Some members will  certainly learn firsthand an  observational
astronomer's frustrations with clouds.  But  there is an equally  good
chance for  success  by hundreds  or  thousands of  Planetary  Society
members who  will be  participating  in an  unprecedented  exploratory
project right in their own backyards.


      Approximate Star Map (for 10 char/in, 6 lines/in printers)
              @ * .  are stars
              Constellation names in ALL CAPS
              Star names in Initial Caps



                                                 Vega
                      *                     *  @

                                              *
     @
Deneb                                      .      LYRA

                                                *
             *                               *

       CYGNUS
  (NORTHERN CROSS)       *
                            .

                                 .
       *
                                      *
                            Beta Cygni

                                                 1 Vulpeculae
                                               .




                                *                       *
                                                         Zeta Aquilae




                                         *


                                  Altair @      .

                                         *
                                                      *


                                                  AQUILA
                                            .
                                                                  *
                                                                     *
                                      *


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Eastern Horizon

This finder chart shows where to  find 1 Vulpeculae amid the stars  in
the eastern sky on May 28th.  [Many faint stars are omitted due to the
tedium and inaccuracy of drawing a  map this way!]  The stars will  be
much closer to the horizon in western North America.

-----
This material is from "The  Planetary Report," March/April 1983.   You
may redistribute it to your local bboard, so long as you include  this
notice: Reproduced  by permission  of The  Planetary Society,  P.O.Box
91687, Pasadena, CA 91109.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-May-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #116    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 116

Today's Topics:
			       Lunar Bases
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 May 83  00:23:46 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 29 May 83 0:18-PDT
Date: 28 May 83 14:29:24-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxvv!brt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Lunar Bases
Article-I.D.: pyuxvv.143

Relay-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mhuxt.UUCP
Message-ID:<143@pyuxvv.UUCP>
Date:Sat, 28-May-83 14:29:24 EDT


Earlier this year , I received a letter from Dr. Wendell Mendell ,
Geology Branch , Planetary and Earth Sciences Division , JSC.
It is reproduced here with the permission of the author .
				Ben Reytblat  (...!pyuxvv!brt)

___________________________________________________________________________

	 WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A MANNED LUNAR  BASE NOW WHEN THE
SHUTTLE FLEET NEEDS A FIFTH ORBITER , WHEN THE SPACE STATION PROJECT
IS SPUTTERING , WHEN PLANETARY EXPLORATION HAS HAD NO NEW START SINCE
1978 , WHEN THE NATIONAL ECONOMY IS IN THE WORST SHAPE SINCE THE GREAT
DEPRESSION , WHEN THE JAPANESE ARE PUSHING FOR WORLD LEADERSHIP IN
TECHNOLOGY , WHEN THE SOVIETS AND THE EUROPEANS ARE CHALLENGING AMERICAN
PREEMINENCE IN SPACE , AND WHEN VIDEO GAMES ARE CORRUPTING YOUTH?
W.W. Mendell and M.B.Duke, L.B. Johnson Space Center, Houston , TX , 77058

	For the past 15 months we have been speaking in various forums within
NASA and in the space science research community concerning the need to begin
preparation now for a decision to establish a manned research laboratory on
the surface of the Moon . Before the end of the next decade , the Space
Transportation System (STS) will include a space station and a reusable
Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV) , the latter for the transfer of payloads
between low Earth orbit and geosynchronous orbit . The energy requirements
for a transfer to lunar orbit are very similar to those required for
transfer to to geosynchronous orbit . The existence of that capability
will force the question whether a permanent manned presence on the Moon's
surface falls within the national interest .
	In fact , this minimal scenario is almost certainly too conservative.
As space activity becomes more commonplace in world affairs , awareness
of the lunar option will emerge well before the turn of the Century .
We have no difficulty imagining motivations for a significant American
enterprise in space stemming from international economic competition ,
cold war geopolitics , or national security considerations.
	Consider the economy of the United States , now in the throes of
transition . In the important area of international trade , the country must
depend on the export of technology , a word once automatically  associated
with the adjective "American" . Today the Japanese are making inroads
on American leadership using long range planning and efficient management
of goal-oriented technology development . The relationship between business
and government is so different here that it is difficult to respond to the
Japanese thrust in kind . The traditional American method for priming
the technological pump has been government financed projects in science
or engineering , designed to demonstrate the American forte - organization
and management of high technology . A manned research laboratory on the Moon
is a world-class project which would serve nicely to stimulate innovation in
the private sector .
	The political impact of this project would be significant , both
nationally and internationally . An analogy to 1961 could be drawn when the
declaration of project Apollo a political reaction to the national
preoccupation with Sputnik and the demoralizing effects of the Bay of Pigs.
Today  the American public largely discounts the methodical Soviet space
program , which is not the unknown quantity it was 25 years ago .
Nevertheless the imminent development of a very large Soviet booster
probably will lead to a highly visible manned mission . A re-enactment
of the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare , coupled with some domestic
or international difficulty , could make a lunar initiative politically
attractive . It is important to remember that today the lunar option is much
more an evolutionary development of the American Space program than it was
in 1961 . Ironically , we are much further away from going to the Moon
today  than we were in 1961 .
	The current space budget of the Department of Defense exceeds that
of NASA , testimony to the importance of national security considerations
in space policy . A major project would be reviewed for its implications
in that area , and the Moon base has some positive attributes as a secure
observation and communication post . Activities on Earth can be seen , and
it is not generally realized that more than 95% of geosynchronous orbit can
be viewed from the near side of the Moon at all times. Communication time
to the Earth is seconds while travel time is days  Finally , we point out
that eyewitness to hostile activity adds enormous credibility to sensor
measurements , however sophisticated they may be .
	We have discussed factors in the politico-economic equations ,
and have neglected the exiting and important science to be done , because we
want to emphasize the probability of a decision point in the bearly 90's .
NASA must prepare for the decision through maintenance of a healthy Lunar
research and analysis program over the next  ten years . The programmatic
objectives must include preparation of a fiscally viable and technologically
challenging strategy for establishment of an international research
laboratory on the Moon . We believe this can be done within a modest but stable
budget , designed to support a healthy continuity in research without creating
a population explosion .
	Project Apollo returned a wealth of scientific information , and it
commonly is assumed that exploration of the Moon is complete . The lunar
samples are rich sources of information for the Apollo landing sites but
represent the rest of the Moon only in an average sense . Orbital remote
sensing data from the "J" missions allow geochemical inferences for much of the
low latitudes , but mapping is nowhere near complete . Photographic coverage
of the Moon lags behind that of Mars . For example , The lunar polar regions
are popular candidates for lunar base but very little is actually known
about them .
	Thus the critical element and the pacing item for the first phase
of the lunar initiative is an unmanned scientific satellite collecting
data in lunar polar orbit for at least six months . At JSC we have formulated
two related mission concepts for Advanced Lunar Mapping Satellite , based
on the well analyzed Lunar Polar Orbiter mission proposal . One mission
profile is a simple Shuttle launch to lunar orbit ; the second profile
adds demonstrations of certain capabilities of the STS and features a return
of the entire spacecraft to Earth orbit upon completion of the lunar
mission . Cost estimates for either scenario fall well below typical
Mariner class planetary missions.
	A new start for a lunar mission can be put in the NASA budget no
earlier than FY85 . The launch would occur by the end of this decade , and
the first analyzed data would be available in the early 90's , when our
predicted decision point occurs . If we act now , we can be ready.
	As our preaching has spread beyond the choir to the congregation ,
and even outside the church , we become ever more exposed to critical cross-
examination by nonbelievers . The hardest , often raised question concerns
economic return - not the long term benefits touted by advocates of space
colonization but rather the near term payback for this next step in space.
Unfortunately , the Moon could not be more desolate , more devoid of riches.
On the other hand , we have two real advantages over our predecessors
who have wrested with this problem. as a scientific and engineering community
, we know more about the Moon and also we can deal more realistically with
the options in the lunar transportation system . Our guesses are more educated,
and our confidence level can be higher .
	From the economic point of view , the Moon's most significant
attribute is it's "proximity" , in terms of gravitational potential to Earth
orbit . Any lunar product can make an immediate impact on the economic
equation if it is needed in quantity by the STS and if it requires minimal
processing . So far we identify two candidates . Simple dirt can be used
as radiation shielding in polar orbit space station or for any manned
mission beyond low Earth orbit . Hundreds of tons of mass are required for
such an application . The second , and more valuable , potential resource
is lunar oxygen for fuel . Production of oxygen from rocks could double or
triple payload capacity of the Shuttle fleet and make profit from the lunar
operation . Other , more subtle , options surely will appear as we have the
opportunity to learn more about the Moon and as we actually can pay people
to think about the problem !
	Why are we talking about a lunar base now ? NASA , as part of its
responsibility for input to space policy must determine the scope , the
advantages , and the difficulties of the lunar option in anticipation of
important decision process in the early 90's . NASA can utilize a modest , long term program of lunar research and analysis to provide disparate activities
in science and in enginnering and in technology development with a common
vision and a new excitement . The vision is important to us all; the time for
it is now.
_________________________________________________________________________

P.S.There are further articles on the subject written by W.Mendell and M.Duke.
If there is enough interest in this one , I will post the other ones later .

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-May-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #117    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 117

Today's Topics:
		Lunar orbit vs. landings (reply to letter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 May 83  06:44:49 PDT
Date: 29 May 1983 09:49 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Lunar orbit vs. landings (reply to letter)
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Note that the ease in getting to lunar orbit (about same as geosynch)
doesn't imply that landings on the Moon are feasible. Landing on and
taking off from a large object like a planet or large satellite (moon)
is much more difficult (takes much more energy) than merely orbiting
it. Perhaps this author's conclusions are correct, that lunar landings
are feasible, but the argument given is invalid.

The case AGAINST landings is even stronger if a low-thrust
high-efficiency engine such as an ion rocket or solar sail is used.
With such a device (of forseeable design) it will be impossible to
soft-land on or take off from any large object such as the Moon.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-May-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #118    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V3 #117    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 30 May 83  13:40:32 PDT
Date: 30 May 83  1339 PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW@S1-A>
To:   space@MIT-MC

Obviously, you are not going to use solar sails or ion drive to 
land or take off from any large body.  But I will point out
that a Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) was not a very big spacecraft.
And yet it was quite capable of moving a fairly significant payload
from lunar orbit and then returning from the surface into orbit.

As for "large objects", this is exactly Werner von Braun's argument
against the methods used by Apollo to get to the moon.  Von Braun
wanted to build a platform in Earth orbit, and then a pair of
re-usable vehicles, a Earth-orbit to Luna-orbit ferry, and a Luna-orbit
to surface lander.  Because the problems of designing a vehicle
that went directly from Earth-surface to Moon-surface and back 
were really hard ones.  But political considerations forced us to
do it the hard way.  Consequently, we lost what Moon capabilites we
had when we launched the last Saturn.  --Tom

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 31 May 83  00:24:10 PDT
Date: Tue, 31 May 1983  03:24 EDT
From: MINSKY@MIT-OZ
To:   Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #117    
In-reply-to: Msg of 30 May 83  0303 PDT from Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>

About lunar landing: David Criswell suggested that an object in high
lunar orbit could be lowered by throwing dust in its path; this would
decelerate it at very moderate ground-based energy cost.  REM is right
that it is hard to land, without landing hard.  However, it seems to me
that Criswell's idea could be extened nicely by building on the moon
a powerful programmed dust projector system as follows.

The incoming ship is directed to approach the moon, not in low orbit,
but in a hyperbolic grazing incidence trajectory.  A "road" has been
prepared on the moon's surface, beginning at that orbit's perigee -
which I imagine to be a mere 50 meters or so above the surface.  Along
this road a long series of simple programmed catapults each toss some
ton or so of dust into the spaceship's path.  A deflector/reaction
shield uses this to slow (and steer) the lander down to the road, and
it lands when its velocity is small enough.

An even simpler arrangement would have the masses just supported on
thin rods above the surface, requiring no machinery at all.

Of course, such schemes require good guidance, but nothing beyond
what's practical today.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #119    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 119

Today's Topics:
	    SPACE Digest V3 #117 [actually lunar soft landing]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 31 May 83  05:28:44 PDT
Date: 31 May 1983 08:33 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #117 [actually lunar soft landing]
To: MINSKY @ MIT-OZ
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

Gee, that's a fantastic idea (in both connotations of the word, both
strange/weird and wonderful/brilliant).
You'll need a shield against the ablative effect of the dust. Perhaps
you first toss enough dust up to orbit to construct a shield, and you
do so. Then your soft-lander "burrows" through additional tossed-up dust
on its way down. While on Luna, it is equipped with a brand new shield
for the up trip. On the way up yet more tossed-up dust gives it
orbital velocity. Once in orbit it sheds the up-shield, dons its ion
rocket (or gets docked with an ion-rocket tug) for non-landing
maneuvering, then sheds the ion rocket or tug and dons a down-shield
for the next trip to Luna.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #120    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 120

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Dusty Decceleration
		       Re: SPACE Digest V3 #119    
			   IUS Problem Reported
	Dietz's host seems to be down, so query to you-all instead
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 83 08:48 PDT
From: DMRussell.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Dusty Decceleration
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Minsky@MIT-OZ.ARPA, DMRussell.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Tossing dust up into the vaccum sounds awfully difficult.  How do you make
sure that it has a nice even distribution throughout the volume of space
that your spacecraft will sweep out.  You don't want any areas of uneven
density ("lumps") since that will make the guidance problems incredibly
tough.  (Not to mention hard on the equipment.)

Here's an easier approach:  Instead of tossing the dust up, how about
letting it fall?  Build yourself a tunnel -- not a highway -- and have a
dust reservoir above the tunnel.  Install dust nozzles throughout the
ceiling of the tunnel, and you should have very fine control over the
density of dust in space.  In fact, you can increase the density to any
degree you'd like by adjusting the flow rates of the nozzles along the
length of the tunnel-- maybe a log density plot as the ship buries itself
in the dust tunnel.

Three problems: (1) How will we get rid of all that dust?  Sounds like it
will make a hell of a mess -- clinging all over everything, jamming up
attitude jets, windows, sensors, etc...  (Maybe have the ship exude a
plastic covering (UV hardened?) just before entering the tunnel that is
peeled off after the ship is picked out of the dust bin.)  (2) This dust
tunnel better be foolproof.  One ship that enters without proper
decceleration will make a big boom and trash everything. (3) How does the
tunnel get rid of the dust after a ship has arrived?  Just flush it out
the bottom?  Is lunar dust that fluid?

-- jus' thinking --

-- DMR --

------------------------------

Date:  1 Jun 1983 0627-PDT
From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #119    
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

	I'd hate to have too much dust in low lunar orbit.  That would be a
serious pollution problem.  It's okay to use dust to catch a ship, but not
to throw one.

						Dick

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 2 Jun 83  01:01:33 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 2 Jun 83 0:50-PDT
Date: 1 Jun 83 7:17:26-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: IUS Problem Reported
Article-I.D.: alice.1896

The Houston Chronicle yesterday reported that an Air Force
spokesman had said that the second stage of the IUS that
was to deliver TDRS-1 to its orbit failed because of a
faulty steering cone.  The cone, which is packed up in
separate, nested segments during the first stage burn,
is supposed to unfold and deploy itself for the second
stage burn.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 2 Jun 83  02:54:44 PDT
Date: 2 June 1983 05:55 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Dietz's host seems to be down, so query to you-all instead
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

COMSAT@MIT-MC 05/31/83 11:57:49 Re: Msg of Saturday, 28 May 1983 04:01 EDT
To: REM at MIT-MC
FAILED: dietz%usc-cse.usc-ecl at UDEL-TCP; Host appears to be permanently down or not accepting mail.
 Failed message follows:
-------
Date: 28 May 1983 04:01 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: O'Neill's talk
To: dietz%usc-cse.usc-ecl @ UDEL-TCP

Why does O'Neill claim we'll have to ship Hydrogen from Earth, instead
of claim we'll find Hydrogen in polar regions of moon or in comets?
Does he know something the rest of us don't know?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #121    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 121

Today's Topics:
		 Shuttle passenger: George Lucas? - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 3 Jun 83  03:01:41 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 3 Jun 83 2:37-PDT
Date: 2 Jun 83 5:37:29-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle passenger: George Lucas? - (nf)
Article-I.D.: inmet.85

#N:inmet:3400001:000:288
inmet!nrh    Jun  2 00:46:00 1983

I just had an idea for a nomination for a shuttle passenger.  Let's
ask NASA to offer a trip to George Lucas.  Who better?  Even
if it's argued that Lucas doesn't NEED a shuttle trip to excite him
about space, all of us space enthusiasts owe him, and what a way to
show our appreciation!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Jun-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #122    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Dusty deceleration and other methods
		    Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
			   Lunar Skyhook refs.
	  Deceleration by dust vs. electromagnetic deceleration
		  Re: George Lucas on the space shuttle
			 Info on IUS failure...  
			 Re: Dusty Decceleration
			 Mock Blast Off a Success
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 3 Jun 83  13:18:38 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 83 09:37 PDT
From: Ciccarelli.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Dusty deceleration and other methods
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Ciccarelli.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

The "dusty deceleration" suggestion brings up an old topic which may be
relevant in a lunar context: the "Skyhook" idea.  As I recall, the
concept was to anchor one end of a strong cable (Kevlar?) to the planet
surface, and extend the other end out into orbit, then use the thing as
a support for an elevator-style operation between orbit and surface.

I've heard of the constraints on skyhook design as applied to Earth
(winds, air traffic, and required material strength), but wouldn't a
lunar skyhook be much easier to construct?  Can someone provide me with
a pointer to design equations or articles on same?

This doesn't achieve the same end as dust-deceleration, i.e. landing a
ship at perigee (peri-luna??), however a "lander" in the conventional
sense might not be needed at all.

/John

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 3 Jun 83  15:05:59 PDT
Date: Fri 3 Jun 83 15:03:12-PDT
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

I think the person selected should be someone who has a proven
track record of producing scientific information for the masses.
Asimov would be a second, maybe some of the press science reporters
such as Walter Sullivan. Arthur C. Clarke?
-------

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 3 Jun 83  17:06:31 PDT
Date: Friday, 3 June 1983 20:04:15 EDT
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ISL
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Lunar Skyhook refs.
Message-ID: <1983.6.3.23.56.59.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ISL>


@Inproceedings[Pearson77, Key="Pearson", Author="Pearson, J.",Title=
"Anchored Lunar Satellites for Cis-Lunar Transportation and Communication",
Organization="AAS",
Booktitle="European Conference on Space Settlements and Space Industries, London, England", Month="September 20", Year=1977,
Note="in Journal of the Astronautical Sciences"]

@article[Moravec78, Key="Moravec", Author="Moravec, H. P.",
        Title="Skyhook!", Journal="L5 News", Month=August, Year=1978]

@inbook[Moravec79, Key="Moravec", Author="Moravec, H. P.",
	Title="Cable Cars in the Sky",
	Series="The Endless Frontier", Volume=1,
	Note="Jerry Pournelle, ed.",
	Publisher="Grosset & Dunlap, Ace books",
	Month="November", Year=1979, Pages="301-322"]

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 4 Jun 83  17:32:02 PDT
Date: 4 June 1983 20:34 EDT
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-ML>
Subject: Deceleration by dust vs. electromagnetic deceleration
To: space-enthusiasts @ MIT-MC

What advantage would dusty deceleration have over using electromagnetic
deceleration in bringing a ship in from orbit on the lunar surface?
Both would require some long structure to provide for energy transfer
over the time required for deceleration. The dusty deceleration would
require a much simpler system on the moon, but the ship would have be
a lot sturdier. On the other hand, using electromagnetic braking would be
much cleaner, and very efficient as the energy of the ship could be
converted into electricity.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 4 Jun 83  19:50:29 PDT
Date: 4 Jun 83 22:53:23 EDT
From: Ron <FISCHER@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: George Lucas on the space shuttle
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

Argh!  Leave the poor man alone!  A recent TIME interview had Lucas
lamenting about how Star Wars has controlled his life completely for the
last couple of years.

I can see it now:

Reporter: "Mr. Lucas, what are your feelings about Life, The Universe
and Everything now that you have made a series of movies that has
affected the lives of almost everyone on the planet, and then ridden the
space shuttle into earth orbit?"

Lucas: "I wish I could have stayed up there..."

(ron)
-------

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 4 Jun 83  21:34:41 PDT
Date: 01 Jun 83  1112 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: Info on IUS failure...  
To:   space@MIT-MC

a073  0538  01 Jun 83
PM-Rocket Failure,350
Satellite in Wrong Orbit Because of Rocket Failure, Newspaper Says
    HOUSTON (AP) - Placement of a $100 million communications satellite
into the wrong orbit during the flight of the space shuttle in April
was caused by the failure of a cone that steers a two-stage booster
rocket, the Houston Chronicle reported today.
    The Tracking and Data Relay satellite, designed to communicate with
future shuttle flights and other satellites, experienced a failure in
the cone, the Chronicle quoted an unidentified source at the U.S. Air
Force Space Command in Colorado Springs, Colo., as saying.
    An improper orbit renders the satellite useless for communications
with future shuttle flights and other satellites, officials have said.
    Space agency engineers hope to correct the orbit through a series of
small rocket firings that will compensate for the failed booster.
    The official told the Chronicle that the booster rocket, called the
Inertial Upper Stage, failed in other ways but those problems
involved the rocket's guidance and communications equipment and did
not affect its mission.
    Because of the limited space available, the second-stage motor of
the rocket has a cone made in segments that nest like a collapsing
traveler's cup. The nested segments extend after the first-stage motor
finishes firing and separates. The cone directs gases from the rocket
motor rearward and steers the booster.
    The IUS failed after the first stage of the rocket had raised the
communication satellite's orbit and as the second stage was placing
the device into its final position over the Atlantic Ocean.
    A second use of the IUS was been postponed until the failure was
understood, officials said earlier. The Chronicle said that the
shuttle missions already scheduled indicate that the next IUS launch
would not come before next March.
    An investigation committee that has studied the IUS failure is
expected to report next week on a recommendations for repair and
modification of the booster system.
    The system was developed by Boeing Aerospace under an Air Force
contract. Failure of the IUS is not related to the space shuttle
Challenger, which delivered the satellite as planned. The failure
occurred later. The satellite, manufacutured by TRW Inc., has
functioned properly.
    The shuttle crew was not responsible for any of the failures, NASA
officials say.
    
ap-ny-06-01 0837EDT
**********

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83  01:51:23 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 5 Jun 83 1:41-PDT
Date: 3 Jun 83 17:08:49-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!ogcvax!metheus!cdi!caf @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Dusty Decceleration
Article-I.D.: cdi.201
In-Reply-To: Article <1653@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Wouldn't something as coarse as "dust" impact the ship as a storm
of micro-meteoroids?  Perhaps one really needs an atmosphere for braking.

Alternate solution: electromagnetic braking?
-- 

	Chuck Forsberg, Chief Engr, Computer Development Inc.
	6700 S. W. 105th, Beaverton OR 97005   (503) 646-1599
	cdi!caf

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83  02:14:22 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 5 Jun 83 2:05-PDT
Date: 4 Jun 83 7:17:50-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Mock Blast Off a Success
Article-I.D.: alice.1900

At 1100 EDT yesterday, NASA computers thought the Challenger was
blasting off.  Right on schedule, NASA held the normal pre-launch
mock-launch, with all five STS-7 astronauts aboard.  Later, NASA
said the mock launch was a total success and that the preparations
for an 18 June launch were right on schedule.  Later this weekend
or this coming week, workers will close the shuttle's cargo bay
doors and installed explosive devices used to jettison the SRB's
and external tank.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Jun-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #123    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 123

Today's Topics:
	  What's up with comet 1983e and the Pallas experiment?
	 Suggestions for amateur astronomy computer tools wanted
	    Things may be looking up for the space program...
	  Deceleration by dust vs. electromagnetic deceleration
       mixture of oxygen and fine dust to decellerate lunar lander?
			      Lunar Bases II
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83  03:07:04 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 5 Jun 83 2:51-PDT
Date: 3 Jun 83 19:11:19-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!hao!csu-cs!silver @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: What's up with comet 1983e and the Pallas experiment?
Article-I.D.: csu-cs.2240

How about some observation reports on comet 1983e -- anybody see it with
naked eye yet?  What's it look like?  (It's been CLOUDY here every night
for a week, dangit.)

And, did anyone  participate in the Pallas  observation and actually see
anything?  Anyone have summary data yet?  (With the clouds and moonlight
I'm not sure I located 1 Vulpeculae, even...)

Alan Silverstein, Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Systems Division, Colorado
ucbvax!hplabs!hpfcld!ajs, 303-226-3800 x3053, N 40 31'31" W 105 00'43"

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83  04:28:04 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 5 Jun 83 4:19-PDT
Date: 2 Jun 83 14:35:34-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Suggestions for amateur astronomy computer tools wanted
Article-I.D.: ihlts.143

I am considering authoring a set of tools (probably in C, to run
on UNIX[tm]) to assist amateur astronomers.  It all began with a
program to generate accurate ephemerides for any time and place on
Earth consisting of locations of the sun, moon and planets.  This
program is nearly complete but not yet ready for release.  The next
thing I thought of adding was a program to take this information as
input and generate a graphic display (for ordinary terminals) of the
positions of these objects and some important stars for, say, 90 degrees
of azimuth above the horizon.  I was wondering what other amateur
astronomers think would be useful and desirable as computer tools.
I would appreciate if you would mail to me any suggestions or comments
you might have.
       Roger Noe             ...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

[UNIX is a trademark of Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.]

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83  18:26:04 PDT
Date: 5 Jun 83 18:18:02 PDT (Sunday)
From: Poskanzer.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Things may be looking up for the space program...
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

Unless I'm imagining things (a distinct possibility), Detroit is once
again starting to borrow its automobile styling from the space program.
For instance, look at the '83 Corvette or Trans Am.  Squint a bit.  What
do you see?  I know what I see: the space shuttle!

If this is in fact a specific reference to the space program, and not
just a general "futuristic" look, then we should see huge jumps in
funding within the decade.
---
Jef

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83  20:55:19 PDT
Date: 5 June 1983 23:59 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Deceleration by dust vs. electromagnetic deceleration
To: BRUC @ MIT-ML
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

If you think EMP from thermonuclear detonations wreaks havok with
sensitive electronic equipment (computers, servos, radio
transceivers), I wonder what havok electromagnetic braking would have
on the innards of the lunar-lander. Making a shield against abrasion
(simple lunar dirt half-melted and refrozen into shape) would seem to
be easier to fabricate on the first lunar mining colony than
electro-magnetic shielding (purified metals such as iron or copper
carefully formed to leave no flaws larger than half the wavelength of
the highest frequency component of the servoing forcefield).

Remember we're trying to bootstrap with very crude stuff on the Moon
that just barely has the capability to throw dirt out into space, and
not much better manufacturing facilities in space initially.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83  21:13:05 PDT
Date: 6 June 1983 00:15 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: mixture of oxygen and fine dust to decellerate lunar lander?
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

The idea (from somebody with a screwed up UUCP header) of using
atmosphere instead of dust is a good one. The lunar soil has a high
percentage of oxygen. If we could separate it, we could vent up the
oxygen. Unfortunately it takes a lot of energy to do the separation
(de-oxidation = reduction). Maybe we could pulverize the dust and
filter out all particles above a particular size, tossing just the
small stuff up. We could do this pulverizing as well as subsequent
storage in an oxygen atmosphere (only a little oxygen is needed) to
prevent vacuum welding of the particles back into large clumps. We'd
toss up the mixture of oxygen and fine dust. By the time the oxygen
pressure has dropped to the level where vacuum welding can occur, the
particles are far enough apart to not collide often anyway, thus only
fine particles and some oxygen arrive at the landing craft's vicinity. If
the ablative shield is made of lunar rock, which is already highly
oxidized, we don't have to worry about highly reactive oxygen
corroding the surface of the landing craft.

This method would seem to require a minimum of precise equipment on
the moon during bootstrapping, just primitive rock-crushing and
tossing stuff, a kitchen flour-sifter, and a small oxygen-extracting
device that can be running 24 hours a day (or should I rephrase that,
29 days a month?) to build up the necessary amount of compressed oxygen
to use for each upcoming landing.

Think-tank brainstorming over the Arpanet is fun! Is somebody from
NASA on this list, and also somebody from SSI, to collect any new
ideas they haven't yet thought of themselves?

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 6 Jun 83  02:08:15 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 6 Jun 83 1:52-PDT
Date: 4 Jun 83 17:18:38-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxvv!brt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Lunar Bases II
Article-I.D.: pyuxvv.152

	Since I posted the first of several articles on the manned Lunar
base a week ago , I've received several letters asking me to post more .
So here is the next one . Again , it is posted with the permission of the
author.
			Ben Reytblat (...!pyuxvv!brt)
________________________________________________________________________

A MANNED LUNAR BASE AND THE NASA BUDGET : IS THERE ROOM FOR ANOTHER PIG
IN THE PYTHON ? W.W.Mendell and M.B.Duke , NASA Johnson Space Center,
Houston , TX 77058 .

	We have argued that a manned research laboratory on the surface of the 
Moon is part of NASA's future and , in particular , that NASA must begin
very preliminary work now (1) . Any version of the Space Transportation 
System (STS) which can serve geosynchronous orbit also can service Lunar orbit
because the energy requirements for the two type of mission are very similar.
After maturation of the STS , Lunar exploration and exploitation is a certainty
at some point because such projects will present only modest technical
challenges . Within the next ten years elected officials will become aware
that manned Lunar activity is very much an evolutionary extension of the STS.
A declaration of national commitment to return to the Moon will become
a viable political option .
	Needless to say , such a declaration would have tremendous 
significance for NASA . Unfortunately , the space agency has a recent history
of being ill-prepared when possible opportunities for new initiatives arise
unexpectedly (2) . We propose here a programmatic approach which will permit
NASA to perform a thorough and realistic evaluation , in the early 90's of
a possible manned Lunar laboratory . We require no new funding for what will
turn out to be the first step in a three-part program to return to the Moon.
	We assume the NASA budget will be approximately constant in real terms
over the next ten years . We also assume that the budget will continue to 
be programmed as it has been historically . The greatest part of the budget
will go to a major project associated with manned spaceflight , e.g. Apollo ,
Shuttle , or Space Station . A minor but significant fraction will go toward
spade science . In FY83 the space science programs ( physics and astronomy ,
planetary , life ) consume approximately 1/8 of the total research and 
development budget . Over the past 15 years planetary science and physic &
astronomy have summed to more than 90% of the space science budget (3) .
the proportion going to each of the two large programs varied , depending
on mission costs . In FY74 77% went to planetary ( Viking ) ; in FY83 67%
goes to physics and astronomy ( Space Telescope ) . We assume that 40% to
70% of the total space science budget could be allocated to planetary
science over the next ten years if there were valid programmatic reasons
for doing so .
	Under our stated assumptions we propose the following programmatic
thrusts , requiring no additional funding over the next 7 or 8 years . 
First , prepare the necessary information base concerning the Moon in
support of a detailed definition of the Lunar laboratory program . Data
would be collected by a long-lived unmanned satellite in Lunar polar orbit.
Second , a Lunar research and analysis program must be maintained , with
special emphasis on Lunar resource utilization . Third , a coordinated point
for Lunar requirements and studies must be established in NASA headquarters.
A possible fourth element involves decisions regarding the design of the
OTV/Lunar ferry . If the arguments presented by Davis (4) are valid , and
oxygen produced from Lunar materials in situ could double or triple payload
capacity of the shuttle fleet , then the development of an efficient 
hydrogen-oxygen vehicle becomes an important issue .
	The Earth and Planetary Exploration Division (EPED) in NASA
Headquarters has been studying future planetary programs with the aid of a 
scientific group , The Solar System Exploration Committee . As a result of
these deliberations , the current EPED strategy emphasizes small missions to
the terrestrial planets . First priority goes to the Venus Radar Mapper (VRM).
A Lunar geochemical orbiter is included in the proposed core program , but
its priority seems linked to an assumed commonality with a Mars geochemical 
orbiter .
	We argue , of course , that the Lunar mission has a higher priority
and that it should be given a new start as soon as possible , in FY85 . A
launch could take place in the late 80's and the new data base would be 
available in the early 90's for planning a manned surface laboratory.
The planetary programs budget could accommodate both VRM and the Lunar orbiter
because both missions are much less costly than Mariner-class missions in
the 70's  . At the present time EPED is unable to consider such arguments
because the organization is chartered to develop exploration strategies 
based only on scientific rationale . Thus the first element of our program ,
which can be accomplished by simple rearrangement of priorities , can be 
implemented only if decisions on the importance of Lunar studies are made
at the Associate Administrator level or higher .
	The second element of our programmatic approach is the maintenance
of a healthy Lunar research program with special emphasis on Lunar resource
utilization . Studies associated with the Lunar orbiter mission would be
sufficient to stimulate Lunar science . However , very little work is being
done on the potential exploration of Lunar resources ; and an infusion of
research funds on the order of a million dollars would have a dramatic effect
on utilization studies . A funding enhancement of that order would  be
insignificant in the total NASA budget .
	The establishment of a manned Lunar laboratory is a complex enterprise
whose requirements will impact every part of NASA research and development
organization . As a space station is designed , as a Lunar orbiting 
spacecraft is developed , as advanced propulsion systems are considered ,
choices are being made which an affect a future Lunar base program . For 
example , good maps of the Moon might be important for siting a Lunar base;
yet cartography ordinarily would not be part of the science package for a
Lunar orbiter . The economic advantages of oxygen for fuel imported from the
Moon would be lost if the OTV is not a H2-O2 vehicle . Some arbitrary payload
limit on an OTV design could preclude its use as a Lunar ferry . Is there an 
orbital inclination for a space station  which would optimize its performance
as a node in the Lunar transportation system ? Storage of cryogenic fuels in
space becomes a more pressing technological issue when the significance of the
Lunar connection is understood .
	These considerations demonstrate the need for an active coordination
function for Lunar base requirements within NASA Headquarters , the third 
element in the first phase of the Lunar initiative . Since no major funding
can be made available for that function , it must reside in an advanced
planning office and it must carry the Administrator's blessing . Once
established , the coordination office should sponsor a blue ribbon workshop
to establish the validity of a lunar presence as a national goal and to outline
the tasks to be accomplished for an eventual return to the Moon . We already
are aware of leaders in government , science and the technical community who
would be interested in participating in such a workshop . After the initial
requirements are identified , low level funding should be available for studies 
of specific issues as well as the important work of coordinating within NASA .
We have discovered groups around the country who are interested in studying the
specific issues without funding and who ask for relevant problems to work
on ( e.g. 5 ) .
	At the end of the first phase of the Lunar initiative in the early
90's , the American space program should possess the scientific information
and technological elements necessary for a realistic appraisal of the Lunar
option . We believe that an increased understanding of the Moon's potential will
make it economically and politically attractive national objective . 
Exploration of the Moon will yield rich scientific dividends and will 
contribute to a new optimism in America with regard to her technological 
capabilities .
	The second phase of the Lunar initiative will bring unmanned roving
vehicles to the surface of the Moon for site evaluation , civil engineering
measurements , and sophisticated scientific experiments . Development of
the Lunar transportation system will take place , and automated factories
will be placed on the Lunar surface to initiate economic utilization of 
Lunar materials prior to the establishment of a permanent manned presence.
>From the second phase we will gain experience operating in the Lunar
environment , learning the advantages and the difficulties .
	The third phase of the Lunar initiative will see establishment of
a permanent manned base in time for the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Space
Age . The first habitat module will be landed at a location where an automated
factory is already producing oxygen from lunar soil . A remotely controlled
earth mover , the last launch in the Phase Two robotic exploration , is
also there . After the module is dragged to the specific site in a small 
depression , it is covered with soil for protection from solar flares .
Over the succeeding months , other specialized modules are landed , and
the initial crew of 12 gradually grows . As research facilities come on line,
scientists are brought from all over the world , after survival training ,
to perform proposed experiments in astronomy , high energy physics ,
geology , and life sciences . Live television coverage will bring people
of the world in contact with the activities on the Moon . As life becomes
routine and the exotic flavor passes , school children will wonder why
anyone ever doubted that the Moon would be an integral part of our destiny .


REFERENCES:
	1. Mendell,W.W. and M.B.Duke (1983) Lunar & Plan. Sci. XIV
	2. Phone call from President to NASA Administrator following
		Viking lander touchdown .
	3. Andelin,John et al . (1982) Space Science Research in the
		United States, Office of Tech. Assess. , U.S. Congress,
		Washington D.C. 20510
	4. Davis,Hubert (1983) Lunar & Plan. Sci. XIV
	5. Evans,David (1983) Lunar & Plan. Sci. XIV

_______________________________________________________________________

P.S. I realize that posting the article in this newsgroup amounts
to preaching to the converted ( or does it ? ) . Nevertheless , I'm
sure there are as many opinions on the subject as there are readers .
I would welcome any suggestions on how to make this dream ( shared by
so many ) come through . All of the comments on the subject will be forwarded
to Dr. Mendell .  I will personally incinerate the authors of the comments
not related to the subject :~}
If the interest stays high , I will post more .
			Ben Reytblat (...!pyuxvv!brt)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Jun-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #124    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
		       Shuttle Enterprise at Dulles
			     Not Ion Rockets!
		   Re: Re: fuel tank color query - (nf)
		     Re: fuel tank color query - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 6 Jun 83  09:08:39 PDT
From: P. C. Clements <clements@NRL-CSS>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 83 11:51:05 EDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Subject: Shuttle Enterprise at Dulles

The Enterprise, atop its 747, will stop at Dulles Airport near Washington
on Sunday, June 12, on its way back home from the Paris Air Show.
Presumably more details will appear in the local media before then.  If
not, NASA has a public information telephone number (listed in the DC
directory) and can surely provide more info.

--

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 6 Jun 83  18:03:17 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 6 Jun 83 17:55-PDT
Date: 5 Jun 83 11:18:01-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: sri-unix!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 @ Cca-Unix
Subject: Not Ion Rockets!
Article-I.D.: sdcattb.2626

	Ion rockets are silly!  Any halfway intelligent spacegoing
gent would use fusion power.  This would consist of a chamber with
a thrust tube leading out the back.  The hydrogen is squirted into
the chamber, confined in magnetic fields as a plasma, heated up by
a laser, and proceeds to do fusion.  When fusion happens, the reaction
is too much for the fields, which turn off, and the hydrogen blasts
out the tube.  Tadaa!!  No weakling ion rockets.  With fusion, a
little rocket will really boogie.

					Brian Sutin
					sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146

PS Don't say this is farfetched.  Fusion will be here in 20 years.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 6 Jun 83  23:29:21 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 6 Jun 83 23:10-PDT
Date: 5 Jun 83 20:47:15-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      sri-unix!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hoyme @ Cca-Unix
Subject: Re: Re: fuel tank color query - (nf)
Article-I.D.: umn-cs.231

#R:eagle:-61400:umn-cs:3800001:000:152
umn-cs!hoyme    Nov 16 18:30:00 1982


Actually, the insulation is present to prevent buildup of ice on the
tank which could shake loose during take off and damage the heat
resistant tiles.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 7 Jun 83  00:11:53 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 6 Jun 83 23:55-PDT
Date: 5 Jun 83 20:47:53-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      sri-unix!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hoyme @ Cca-Unix
Subject: Re: fuel tank color query - (nf)
Article-I.D.: umn-cs.232

#R:ecn-pa:-62900:umn-cs:3800002:000:194
umn-cs!hoyme    Nov 23 13:53:00 1982

It is the natural color of the insulation used to prevent ice building
up on the tank before launch.  Ice could damage the tiles during launch.
			     Ken Hoyme
			     University of Minnesota

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #125    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:
		       Not Ion Rockets? - rebuttal!
		    extraterrestrial unmanned vehicles
			 Why not Ion Rockets??   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 7 Jun 83  03:22:52 PDT
Date: 7 June 1983 06:14 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Not Ion Rockets? - rebuttal!
To: sri-unix!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 @ CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

You may believe fusion will be invented in 20 years, but I'm not so
confident that I want to risk the whole space program on that guess!
Remember how STS was several years behind schedule, and it was
established technology, nothing new except the engineering, and we
staked everything on that and now Galileo is 3 years late as are all
other probes except those very few which were able to use alternate
launch facilities.

I'm all for fusion power next century or whenever the confinement
problem is solved, but for bootstrapping to the Moon in the next 20
years let's not rely on hopes for something that at best will be ready
when we need it and at worst will be a century or more late.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 7 Jun 83  10:19:03 PDT
Date: 7 Jun 1983 10:07:05-PDT
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@aids-unix>
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: extraterrestrial unmanned vehicles

  In Volume 3, Issue 123 of SPACE Digest, Ben Reytblat (...!pyuxvv!brt)
presented an article by W. W. Mendell and M. B. Duke discussing a proposed
manned Lunar base.  An excerpt:

      "The second phase of the Lunar initiative will bring unmanned
    roving vehicles to the surface of the Moon for site evaluation ,
    civil engineering measurements , and sophisticated scientific
    experiments . Development of the Lunar transportation system will
    take place , and automated factories will be placed on the Lunar
    surface to initiate economic utilization of  Lunar materials prior
    to the establishment of a permanent manned presence. >From the
    second phase we will gain experience operating in the Lunar
    environment , learning the advantages and the difficulties ."

  I would be especially interested in seeing a discussion of unmanned
roving vehicles take place.  This is a robotics and computer scientific
task to which SPACE Digest participants should be especially capable of
making a useful and important contribution, and in the short term.  Also
interesting would be references to or summaries of literature where these
topics are addressed.

  A possible scenario:  Suppose you have just been made an R&D director
within NASA, tasked with the design and development of an unmanned roving
vehicle for lunar or planetary applications, budgeted at (say) a
half-million dollars for each of several years.  (Keep in mind that this
is NASA -- money is tight.)  For what extraterrestrial environments could
such a system be built using contemporary or easily developed technology?
(Lunar isn't the only possibility -- planetary or deep-space exploration
and asteroid mining also come to mind.)  What are the problems in AI,
robotics, computer science, and signal processing that would have to be
solved in order for the device to function effectively in your
environment(s) of choice?  What would be the pitfalls in the design
process?  How much of the team's effort would go to mechanical or
electrical/electronic engineering problems as opposed to AI issues of path
planning, situation assessment, resource allocation, or control?  What are
those issues?  How would YOU direct that research in order to produce a
viable unmanned rover in the near term?

	cheers,						asc

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 7 Jun 83  12:31:40 PDT
Date: 07 Jun 83  1130 PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW@S1-A>
Subject: Why not Ion Rockets??   
To:   space@MIT-MC

	Date: 5 Jun 83 11:18:01-PDT (Sun)
	To: space @ Mit-Mc
	From: sri-unix!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 @ Cca-Unix

		Ion rockets are silly!  Any halfway intelligent spacegoing
	gent would use fusion power.  This would consist of a chamber with
	a thrust tube leading out the back.  The hydrogen is squirted into
	the chamber, confined in magnetic fields as a plasma, heated up by
	a laser, and proceeds to do fusion.  When fusion happens, the reaction
	is too much for the fields, which turn off, and the hydrogen blasts
	out the tube.  Tadaa!!  No weakling ion rockets.  With fusion, a
	little rocket will really boogie.

						Brian Sutin
						sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146

Unfortunately, I suppose, we don't qualify as being even halfway intelligent.
We understand ion propulsion.  We have built and tested ion thrusters.  They
ain't great, but they work.  Fusion, on the other hand, is just a little bit
harder than you seem to believe.  We are learning new things about plasmas
every day, and we still have a way to go before we will understand fusion.


	PS Don't say this is farfetched.  Fusion will be here in 20 years.

With any luck, sooner.  But I don't want to wait for it.  Ion thrusters,
light sails, and mass drivers, as well as good old chemical rockets
will get us started.  And we will learn a lot about the practical matters
of spaceflight that will be invaluable when fusion drives become practical.
--Tom

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Jun-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #126    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 126

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
		    extraterrestrial unmanned vehicles
		       Comet 1983e ephemeris update
			     Pioneer call in
		   Second hand report about Comet 1983e
			 SPACE Digest V3 #125    
		  Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jun 83  03:29:56 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 8 Jun 83 3:09-PDT
Date: 6 Jun 83 14:37:33-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!presby!burdvax!cng @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
Article-I.D.: burdvax.792
In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.1738

~r m02

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jun 83  03:34:46 PDT
Date: 8 June 1983 06:35 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: extraterrestrial unmanned vehicles
To: andy @ AIDS-UNIX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Re unmanned rovers and other facilities on Moon:
The argument that LLO (Low Lunar Orbit) isn't significantly more
energy expensive than GEO (Geosynchronous Earth Orbit) means that
sending crew into orbit around the Moon to establish close radio link
with remote-control equipment on the Moon to avoid the long
feedback/servo delay that Earth/Moon remote control suffers, is feasible.
I suggest LLO/Moon telepresence for any task that requires very rapid
feedback, and Earth/Moon telepresence for all the other tasks that can
get by with 2.5 second speed-of-light-round-trip delays. That way we
can have a small crew in LLO and a few thousand back on Earth, each
doing something useful, and get better effectiveness than with the
small LLO crew alone or the gigantic Earth crew alone.

Establishing an orbiting Mars station, with unmanned equipent on the
surface of Mars, would also be feasible.

We could have a ring of communications relay satellites to allow one
orbiting crew to be in constant contact with a given surface-site even
when on the opposite side of the planetary body. Remember it takes
only 1/7 second for light to circumnavigate the Earth, less around
Mars, and about a quarter on the Moon, so servo delays will be almost
unnoticable around the Moon and very tolerable around Mars (or the
moons of Jupiter or Saturn for that matter).

I suggest we concentrate on (1) scientific info such as lunar polar
orbiter, (2) rocket technology such as ion rocket, (3) establishing
orbiting manned space stations around Earth and other planetary
bodies, (4) establishing unmanned landers/rovers for on-site chemical
analysis of minerals and subsequent mining operations. Heavy-load
landers for exchanging human crews on planetary surfaces can wait
until we have a real need for that capability and the means and funds
to do it.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jun 83  05:46:59 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 8 Jun 83 5:27-PDT
Date: 6 Jun 83 15:49:52-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Comet 1983e ephemeris update
Article-I.D.: inuxc.688

Comet 1983e ephemeris update. Information supplied from the 
W.R. Brooks observatory. The comet's max magnitude is estimated
to be 5.3 the morning of June 12th. This is about as bright as
comet Austin was last summer and a lot dimmer than comet IRAS et.
al. It should be possible to see this comet with field glasses
if you are in a non light polluted area( a good test is if you 
can see all of the stars that make up the little dipper then
you have execellent transparency). With the moon approaching new
and the comet reaching max magnitude this weekend looks like the
best chance to view this visitor to our skies.
__________________________________________________________________
  DATE    TIME   R.A.                 DEC.
          EST    hour   min.   sec.   deg.   min.   sec.

  6 61983 1900     23.    35.    36.    37.    53.      .
  6 71983 1900     23.     7.    26.    35.    25.    33.
  6 81983 1900     22.    42.    22.    33.      .    53.
  6 91983 1900     22.    20.    24.    30.    38.    59.
  6101983 1900     21.    32.    59.    23.    50.      .
  6111983 1900     20.    28.     6.    11.    37.    59.
  6121983 1900     19.     9.    29.    -5.   -41.      .
  6131983 1900     17.    52.    59.   -21.    -7.      .
  6141983 1900     16.    51.    47.   -30.   -21.      .
  6151983 1900     16.    23.    31.   -33.   -18.   -59.
  6161983 1900     15.    40.    53.   -36.   -57.      .
  6171983 1900     15.    15.    11.   -39.    -4.   -59.
  6181983 1900     14.    56.      .   -40.   -26.   -19.
  6191983 1900     14.    47.    37.   -40.   -22.    -6.
  6201983 1900     14.    37.     5.   -40.   -48.   -59.
  6211983 1900     14.    28.    43.   -41.    -8.    -6.
  6221983 1900     14.    23.    47.   -41.   -14.      .
  6231983 1900     14.    18.    30.   -41.   -23.      .
  6241983 1900     14.    14.     7.   -41.   -29.   -40.
  6251983 1900     14.    11.     6.   -41.   -32.   -13.
  6261983 1900     14.     8.     6.   -41.   -35.   -59.
  6271983 1900     14.     5.    34.   -41.   -39.   -13.
  6281983 1900     14.     3.    30.   -41.   -41.   -53.
  6291983 1900     14.     1.    54.   -41.   -44.      .
-----------------------------------------------------------------

					Fred (ABI for now)

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jun 83  09:56:33 PDT
Received: ID <BLACKWELL@CMU-CS-C>; 8 Jun 83 12:55:11 EDT
Date: 8 Jun 83 12:55:11 EDT
From: Mike Blackwell <Blackwell@CMU-CS-C>
Subject: Pioneer call in
To: space@MIT-MC

LOS ANGELES (UPI) - If you think long-distance telephone calls cost too
much, try this one - 3 billion miles for 50 cents.
  From 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PDT next Monday, the public can call a special
number - 1-900-410-4111 - and listen to a one minute tape recording of
the radio signals beamed from Pioneer 10 when the spacecraft was nearly
3 billion miles from Earth.
  The telephone network was set up by TRW.
-------

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jun 83  19:44:37 PDT
Date: 8 June 1983 22:43 EDT
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-ML>
Subject: Second hand report about Comet 1983e
To: space-enthusiasts @ MIT-MC, astronomy @ MIT-MC

Today, I called the Smithsonian Oak Ridge Observatory in Harvard, MA.
The fellow I spoke to (I don't know his name) told me that they haven't been
able to see the comet either visually or photographically. The problem
photographically is that the comet is moving fast so it's difficult
to track, and that it's much more diffuse than predicted. The
observatory has a 61 inch reflector, but he didn't say whether that
scope was used for these attempts.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jun 83  22:18:14 PDT
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1983  01:15 EDT
To:   Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
From: Minsky@MIT-OZ
Cc:   SPACE@MIT-MC
Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #125    
In-reply-to: Msg of 8 Jun 1983  06:02-EDT from Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>

On Lunar Rover.

If I had 500K/year for research on a lunar rover, I wouldn't spend any
of it on AI or automatic obstacle avoidance, etc. at all.  I would spend
  all of it on developing a good remote, all-purpose Rover vehicle,
to be controlled through a 2-1/2 second delay system.  I would de-bug
in in suitable local environments, e.g., staring in the Mohave or
somewhere nice like that.  We'd see how often the delay causes accidents;
the top design speed would be perhaps 0.2 meters/second so that
most contingencies couldb be handled in human reaction times.

Once we know the accident rate we take two tacks.  First, simple
automatic probes that measure the terrain a meter ahead of the beast
so that it won't fall into crevasses that the operator missed or was
too careless to avoid.  This simple "AI" work would then lead to
increasing concervative reliability.

The other tack would be mechanical escape devices.  For example, the
standard operation might be to use a retractable anchor that is hooked
to the terrain before advancing each 100 meters.  Then its prongs are
retracted and it is pulled back to the Rover and reimplanted.  This
would permit using a winch to get out of troubles.  It might not save
   the day if a landslide partly buries the Rover, though.  A more
advance system would have TWO Rovers roped together, like climbers,
each with good manipulator capability.  (Climbers prefer three.)
That could be enough to get out of most problems.

All this would lead to a Rover that can traverse about a
kilometer/day.  A few of them could explore a lot of moon in a few
years.  The project would stimulate some AI for use on Mars and other
places.  But I think that over the next 3-5 years, the fewer new AI
projects the better, in some ways, and anyone with such budgets should
aim them at AI education and research fellowships.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 9 Jun 83  00:56:01 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 9 Jun 83 0:40-PDT
Date: 7 Jun 83 6:45:28-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!cng @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
Article-I.D.: burdvax.799

Are you kidding?  Carl Sagan?  He hasn't brought science to the masses.
He's expounded his own form of 'science as religion'.  Can you really compare
the quality and accuracy of COSMOS with good science programs (i.e. NOVA)?
COSMOS (like it's creator) is full of hype and speculation.  One
could learn more science from a few STAR WARS movies.

					tca

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #127    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:
				  rover
		       Shuttle in Southern Ontario
				Pioneer 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 9 Jun 83  05:24:40 PDT
Date: 9 June 1983 08:24 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: rover
To: andy @ AIDS-UNIX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

First year, build a bunch of servo units with built-in 2.5 second
delay and attach them to a random survey of existing vehicles, both
commercial (private automobiles, trucks, dune buggeys, etc.) and
experimental (HPM's cart, SRI's shakey frame, Disney stuff, etc.).
Audition the 10% unemployed as remote-controllers, keeping the best.
Get as much info as possible the first year without having to actually
build any new vehicles.

Then from the general info about the 2.5 second delay and the human
controllers, decide feasibility of lunar-rover project, and if
feasible then use specific info about the various vehicles to decide
what new vehicles to build in later years for further experiments.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 10 Jun 83  02:09:14 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 10 Jun 83 1:57-PDT
Date: 8 Jun 83 11:19:06-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle in Southern Ontario
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3010

   For those of you who live in the Southern Ontario area, and don't read 
newspapers: Today is wednesday, meaning that tomorrow (and possibly friday)
the Space Shuttle engineering test article (also known as the Enterprise)
will be on display at one of the airports near Ottawa. For those who live in
Toronto, the Enterprise is scheduled to overfly our fair city at 5:00 PM
on Friday, on its way down south. Hopefully they'll do a few passes, at least.
Check your newspapers for more detailed information.

-Kieran A. Carroll
.....decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 10 Jun 83  02:51:54 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 10 Jun 83 2:38-PDT
Date: 9 Jun 83 11:32:05-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Pioneer 10
Article-I.D.: alice.1907

At 0800 EDT this coming Monday, Pioneer 10 will cross the orbit
of Neptune, now the farthest known planet from the sun, and thus
become the first man made spacecraft from Earth to exit the solar
system.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Jun-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #128    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:
			      Re: Carl Sagan
			     call Pioneer 10
		  Carl Sagan and Science for the Masses
			   Re: call Pioneer 10
		  Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
		  Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
			  orbital calculations?
	       Re: Shuttle passenger: George Lucas? - (nf)
			      Lunar Rovers  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 83 15:48:46-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxw!thor @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan

I believe C. Sagans background is in physics-BS,MS and Ph.D all
from the Universtiy of Chicago-I'm pretty sure about this but
the field of study may have been astronomy.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 83 16:35:18-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!osd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: call Pioneer 10

How about this one...

AT&T announces a telephone number you can call this Monday that will allow
you to hear a slowed down tape recording of the signal sent by Pioneer 10.

You'll pay $0.50 for one minute of listening to wonderful beeps from near
the edge of the Solar System.

This is not a joke. Call this Monday June 13. The number is 900-410-4111.
You'll never forget it!??!

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jun 83 09:51 PDT
From: GMEREDITH.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Carl Sagan and Science for the Masses
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

I cannot find fault with Carl Sagan's approach to getting Astronomy and
the general history of science to the masses.  The hype approach seems
entirely appropriate for reaching people who see video games as the
primary benefit of computer technology.

Guy

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 83 16:32:30-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: call Pioneer 10

What a waste of $0.50 !!!!!   If I want to hear unintelligible gibberish
on the phone, I can pick up the reciever when my modem is connected.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 83 5:55:04-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!we13!otuxa!ll1!sb1!sb6!emory!gatech!spaf @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger

.....maybe we could have Carl Sagan as shuttle cargo?  I mean,
a "getaway special" should be cheap enough if we all contribute.
I just put my $.02 in.
-- 
"The soapbox of Gene Spafford"

Spaf @ GATech		        (CS Net)
Spaf.GATech @ UDel-Relay        (ARPA)		 School of ICS
.....!{sb1, allegra}!gatech!spaf  (uucp)      	 Georgia Tech
.....!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!spaf                   Atlanta, GA 30332

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 83 16:42:14-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekid!waltie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger

No!!  No!!  I think they meant to have Carl Sagan as FUEL for the shuttle!

                             yours truly,
                                         waltie
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekid!waltie

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 83 8:23:39-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: orbital calculations?

I'm looking for some information about orbital computation
methods. I'm writing a computer program for home computer systems 
that essentially solve the n body gravitational (n something around
ten bodies) attractional problem. I would like the program to
be able to plot out earth to moon orbits, show the stabilities of the
L-5 points, and demonstrate the gravitational whip and braking effects
of planetary fly-bys. I intend to solve the differential equations
using either a Runge Kutta or predictor corrector formulation.
	Now to my question. How do the big boys (NASA - JPL etc)
formulate this problem when they are running orbital calculations?


					Fred (ABI Indy)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 83 13:28:30-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!linus!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle passenger: George Lucas? - (nf)

If you're interested in sending Lucas up, why not follow the idea I
posted to the net some months ago - namely devote one flight of the
shuttle to filming the first movie in space.  Even if not directed
by Lucas it would be a true automatic classic for this reason.
-- 
	Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 83  1150 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: Lunar Rovers  
To:   space@MIT-MC
CC:   RSF@SU-AI   

	Let's not forget that the Soviet Union actually put a rover
vehicle on the moon several (~15?) years ago. If I recall correctly
it was named Lunokhod. I believe it ran for several weeks. Can anyone
remember anything else about it - eg. size, speed, method of control and
propulsion ?

	Ross.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #129    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 129

Today's Topics:
			     call Pioneer 10
		      STS-7 initial orbital elements
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 12 Jun 83  22:01:23 PDT
Date: 13 June 1983 00:58 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: call Pioneer 10
To: harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!osd @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

You don't have the worst of it.
KPIX Channel 5 in San Francisco advertised that 900 phone as toll-free.
I wonder how many people will call it thinking it'f free (not to
mention thining it would be interesting), get disgusted with the phone
charge, complain to Ma Bell, get no satisfaction, and then blame it on
NASA instead of stupid KPIX with their decrepit news reporting?

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 13 Jun 83  01:16:48 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 13 Jun 83 1:10-PDT
Date: 13 Jun 83 1:28:50-EDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-7 initial orbital elements
Article-I.D.: eagle.996

Courtesy of Ralph Wallio, W0RPK, of AMSAT:

Initial STS-7 Keplerian elements will be as follows:

Epoch			18 Jun 83 (day 169) 12:46:03.6 UTC
Semi Major Axis		6683.6198 km
Eccentricity		0.001277
Inclination		28.4805 deg
Argument of perigee	0.52313 deg
RA of Ascending Node	173.54846 deg
Mean anomaly at epoch	359.47822 deg

First ascending node occurs at 0113:04 into the mission at 174 deg 56 min
26 sec EAST.  Period will be 1:30:38.  Nominal mission liftoff at 1133UTC
on 18 Jun.  

TELSAT deploy at 09:43 into mission will alter Keplerian elements due to
burns involved.  My source will follow-up with new data.

Phil, KA9Q

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #130    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 130

Today's Topics:
			 STS-7 element correction
			  Lunar roving vehicles
		     Pioneer Leaves Planetary System
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 83 7:01:58-EDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-7 element correction

The preliminary element set I posted earlier for STS-7 appears to have
an inconsistency in it.  It appears that the RAAN (Right ascension of
ascending node) figure was really the terrestrial longitude of the
ascending node, and it must be corrected for the sidereal time of the epoch.

The RAAN figure should therefore be 272.65338 deg.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 13 June 1983 23:17 EDT
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-ML>
Subject: Lunar roving vehicles
To: space-enthusiasts @ MIT-MC

(From Eben Haber)

In Jane's Pocket Book Of Space Exploration on page 45 (a book no space
enthusiast should be without), the following description of the
Lunokhod is given (slightly edited):

(USSR)

Role: Lunar surface exploration
Data [the picture of the device]: Lunakhod 2
Height: About 4ft 4in.  Wheelbase: 7ft 3in.
Diameter: 7ft.  Track: 5ft 3 in.
Weight: 1840lbs.

Spacecraft: Remotely controlled lunar roving vehicle has circular tub-shaped
 pressurised instrument compartment as main body. Convex top has fitted
 thermal insulation cover which hinges open rearward up to 180 degrees during
 lunar day to expose solar array under surface. Vehicle rides on eight
 independently powered mesh each 20in in diameter and trails odometer wheel at
 rear... [goes on to talk about binocular camera for 5 man control crew,
 constant speed or previous commanded movements, and descent vehicle]
Payload: Main experiment in "Rifma" spectrometer carried on...to make x-ray 
 analysis of soil.  Probe device tests physical-mechanical properties of soil.
 Also carried are proton, electron and alpha particle detectors, and x-ray 
 telescope and a French built laser reflector.
Mission: Launched on January 8, 1973, Luna 21 touched down in sea of Serinity
 on January 16 after four days in Lunar orbit.  Lunokhod 2 survived four lunar
 "nights" and covered 23 miles before final shutdown at begining of July 1973.
Programme: Second Lunokhod similat to Lunokhod 1/Luna 17 which operated in 
 Mare Imbrium from November 1970 to October 1971 and covered 6 miles before
 expiry of isotope heater alled internal systems to freeze up. No reason
 anounced for shorter life of Lunokhod 2, but both exceeded planned
 operational life of three months. [goes on to tell differences between
 Lunokhod 1 & 2]
Launch vehicle: D-1-e [see another part of the book]

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 83 8:48:22-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Pioneer Leaves Planetary System

At 0800 EDT today, Pioneer 10 became the first Earth-made craft
to pass out of the known planetary system, passing the orbit of
Neptune, the farthest known planet for the next 16 years.  Scientists,
who plan to maintain contact with the spacecraft for at least
the next ten years, say it will continue to look for the heliosphere,
the boundary of the sun's atmosphere, and a possible tenth planet
or brown dwarf star that some believe may be beyond the orbit of
Pluto.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Jun-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #131    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 131

Today's Topics:
			Re: many body calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 15 Jun 83  00:29:24 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 15 Jun 83 0:26-PDT
Date: 14 Jun 83 23:51:12-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: many body calculations
Article-I.D.: eagle.998
In-Reply-To: Article ihuxr.468

This is a topic that has lately come near and dear to my heart (I'm
doing the kick motor calculations for the amateur satellite Phase 3-B,
due to be launched this Thursday morning). The method which Lew Mammel
describes is known in the literature as the "Cowell Method", which is
just the numerical integration of the second-order differential
equations that describe an orbit.  The beauty of this method is its
simplicity and the ease with which it can include perturbing factors
(other planets, air drag, earth oblateness, etc.)

On the other hand, if the problem you're solving is a good approximation
to two-body motion (i.e., one large body dominates the motion of your
satellite) then you can integrate just the perturbing forces with
respect to a reference two-body orbit, updating the reference orbit
when you get too far away.  This is Encke's method, and it allows larger
step sizes (increasing program speed and reducing accumulated roundoff error)
than Cowell's method.

There are lots of methods for doing the numerical integration that these
models require.  Having no formal training in the subject, I'm only now
becoming familiar with the Runge-Kutta method, which is apparently the
simplest (but not the fastest or most accurate) algorithm available.  It
is, however, a refinement of the method which Lew describes, and is
probably much more accurate.

I'm learning to distrust anything a computer prints out with a decimal
point wedged between digits...

Phil Karn

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Jun-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #132    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:
				Query ???
			Re: many body calculations
				milestone
	Deep Space Relay Dishes to keep track of Pioneer's signal
	 STS-7 Preparations Proceeding -- STS-10 may be Scrubbed
			    STS-7 on Schedule
		     Visit of the Shuttle Enterprise
			Re: many body calculations
		  Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
			      Space yachting
		    'Births of stars and their orbits'
			     Countdown Begins
			   Re: Thank-you NASA!
			 AMSAT-OSCAR-10 IS BORN!!
		Problem Eliminated -- Countdown Continues
			     Solar-Sail Race
			  STS-10 Scrubbed - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 83 16:02:59-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!mhuxh!mhuxr!mhuxv!mphw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Query ???

A question for all you space junkies out there:

At 23:10 EDT Sunday June 12 I saw what looked like a meteorite.
I was in Glen Cove, Long Island, New York, looking approximately
North-northwest at the time.  I saw a bright, fast-moving light
that lasted for about 5 seconds.  It flared and burned out at the
last second.  There was no sound (I waited for about 1/2 min) made.

Any comments?  Was this a meteorite?  Someone testing out his flare gun?


				Pat Wood
				mhuxv!mphw

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 83 16:39:03-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxr!lew @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: many body calculations

There have been several inquiries about calculating planetary movements
and many-body behavior. I not sure if this fills the bill, but you can
get excellent results with a straight-forward application of "F=ma",
combined with "F=m1*m2/r^2" (vector versions, of course). One simple
trick which increases the accuracy tremendously is the following.

Calculate the positions of the bodies half a time unit from the current
time (ignoring acceleration), and use these positions to calculate the
gravitational forces during that time unit. This comes much nearer to
providing the correct accelerations than using the positions at the
beginning of the time interval.

When I was a TA at Lehigh in the introductory physics course,
the students were given this method to calculate one period
of a planet, given an initial position and velocity. I computed the
orbital elements and compared them with the simulation and found a
really fine agreement with a few hundred time units per orbit.

I later used this method to estimate the magnitude of Jupiter's
perturbation of Mars's orbit. My preliminary conclusion was that it was
great enough that it should have defeated Kepler in his "war on Mars".
Maybe Kepler had data points near nodes of the cyclic variation
of the perturbative effects. Anyway, I've never resolved this question
to my own satisfaction.

		Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 83 20:39:31-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!phr @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: milestone

Pioneer 10 crossed the orbit of Neptune at 8 a.m. EDT today.  It became
the first man-made object to leave the Solar System.  Hello, Universe!

------------------------------

Date: Wed 15 Jun 83 11:18:06-PDT
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Deep Space Relay Dishes to keep track of Pioneer's signal
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

I have often wondered whether it would be possible to launch relay
dishes to receive and amplify fading signals from a previously
launched spacecraft such as Pioneer. Following in its trajectory and
perhaps even homing on its faint signal, they would receive and re
transmit the signal to Earth. Could a receiving dish adequate to
serve as a useful relay be sent out. For that matter, could it
be put into orbit around the sun along with others to form a virtual
deep space receiver system?

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 83 6:03:14-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-7 Preparations Proceeding -- STS-10 may be Scrubbed

Preparations for STS-7 were proceeding smoothly today, as technicians
began pressurizing Challenger's fuel tanks and inspecting her thermal
tile protection system.

Meanwhile, NASA announced that STS-10, currently scheduled to launch
this November, may be scrubbed due to a lack of payload.  The Air
Force, which had booked the flight to carry a classified satellite
asked NASA to delete their payload from the manifest and schedule
it on a later flight because of the still unresolved problems with
the IUS that malfunctioned during STS-6.  NASA said if it cannot
find a payload to be moved up to STS-10 launch time, it will most
probably scrub the launch.  Twelve missions are planned for next
year.  STS-8 and STS-9, now scheduled for August and September of
this year, are still on schedule.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 83 20:52:17-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-7 on Schedule

Technicians today completed work on the Challenger's fuel
tanks and filled her fuel cells with liquids hydrogen and
oxygen.  The countdown for the 0733 launch on Saturday
will begin at 0300 EDT this Thursday.  The count, cut in
half from a little less than 5 days to a bit more than 2
days, was shortened due to experience gained from past flights.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 83 17:24:43-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!miles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Visit of the Shuttle Enterprise

The visit of the space shuttle Enterprise, to Ottawa Uplands Airforce base
last week, was, in my opinion, a total success.  I believe I speak for
many, who either saw the shuttle "in the flesh" at Ottawa,or watched the
shuttle fly over Toronto, when I say a very big "Thankyou" to the U.S. and
NASA for the courtesy visit of the Enterprise.  The event was so
successful, that the Canadian government has finally confirmed that we
will be training one, and possibly a second Canadian astronaut, to fly
aboard the shuttle, on a future flight.  This event shows the positive
side, of what can be achieved through international cooperation in the
quest for space.  The shuutle was on view from June 8-10, near the
National Aerospace Establishment wind tunnel, at Uplands air force base,
Ottawa, Canada.  Here's to a successful seventh launch of a space shuutle,
on June eighteenth. Thankyou, Miles Leech

                                             utcsrgv!utzoo!miles

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 83 16:47:22-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihldt!norton @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: many body calculations

So sorry at my ignorance, but what was Kepler's war on
Mars?
			Mike Norton
			ihldt!norton

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 83 23:31:15-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!ogcvax!metheus!cdi!caf @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger

But only from a Star Wars movie do we learn about sound travel and
fireballs in vacuum!

The best aspect of COSMOS (to my way of thinking) IS the dramatization;
I especially enjoyed the primordial organic molecule generation sequence
done to the tune of a Mahler symphony.
-- 

	Chuck Forsberg, Chief Engr, Computer Development Inc.
	6700 S. W. 105th, Beaverton OR 97005   (503) 646-1599
	cdi!caf

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 1983 15:45:04-EDT
From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-CS-G
Subject: Space yachting

Space sport proposed: solar-sail race to the moon

Princeton, N. J.---Before manufacturing facilities and colonies can be
developed in space, space must become a reality for the general public and
politicians, as well as for scientists  and engineers.

What better way to get the public involved in space than a sporting event?
asked Guy Pignolet of the French Space Agency in Toulouse.  He is part of an
amateur organization that plans to participate in a solar-sail race to the
moon.

Previous space events, as he pointed out at the Princeton Conference on Space
Manufacturing held May 9--12, engaged the public through television viewing
only, while a solar sail race could be directly observed and viewers could take
pictures, cheer teams, and make bets.

Such a public-relations stunt is necessary, he explained, because though people
think that colonies and manufacturing will eventually be in space, they
consider them a dream, and the development of such facilities needs the support
of socioeconomic power groups who see it as an impending reality.  A solar-sail
race, he said, can act as a tangible intermediate step to demonstrate how close
we really are to the development of space.

It will also serve, he said, to educate ``people who are essential to the
large-scale development of space---the politicians.''  They need to be better
informed, Mr. Pignolet argued, citing the fact that earlier this year---after
five launches of the European rocket Ariane---a member of the U. S. House
subcommittee that handles NASA authorization thought Ariane was a manned
shuttle.

The sails, which use solar pressure to navigate, can work only at altitudes of
over 1000 miles beacuse of atmospheric drag.  Mr. Pignolet said the racing
sails, probably three in number, would be sent to a low orbit with an Ariane
launcher, then boosted high above the atmosphere, separated from the container,
and allowed to drift a few miles apart.  A start signal would be given, and
teams would take radio control.  The sails would make approximately 100 orbits
of the earth and take one year to reach the moon, requiring much navigation to
make the best use of solar pressure.

So far, Mr. Pignolet said, three groups of amateur solar sailors have declared
their intention to participate in the race and are seeking corporate
sponsorship.  The cost of building, launching, and operating the sails is
expected to run into millions of dollars.  However, Mr. Pignolet pointed out,
its cost compared with the cost of major car and yacht-racing events indicates
its feasibility.  The race project, he said, is still in its initial
development phase.

``All those interested in space colonization and space manufacturing can help
toward its success in whatever way they can,'' Mr. Pignolet said, ``in order
soon to have 4 billion pairs of eyes looking at the high frontier, and in order
sooner to have 4 billion people pushing for the opening of the high frontier.''

---Tekla Perry, The Institute, July 1983, volume 7, number 7, p. 2.  (The
Institute is IEEE's monthly newspaper.)

Comments: didn't Arthur Clarke describe this years ago, but with manned racers?
What does he mean by ``directly observed?''  How big will these things be?

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 16 Jun 83  20:20:21 PDT
Date: 16 June 1983 23:21 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC>
Subject: 'Births of stars and their orbits'
To: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!richk @ UCB-VAX
cc: KFL @ MIT-MC, SPACE @ MIT-MC, Physics @ SRI-UNIX


	Date: 13 Jun 83 23:00:16-PDT (Mon)
	To: physics @ Sri-Unix
	From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!richk @ Ucb-Vax
	Subject: 'Births of stars and their orbits'
	
	It was stated that stars are born in groups.  Later they move off into
	seperate orbits. Thus, the suns siblings could well be on the other
	side of the galaxy from us.
	
	What is it that spreads these stars out?  Close encounters with other
	stars?  That doesn't seem too likely.  There would have to a lot of
	encounters to spread them all out.  Internal encounters seem to be too
	limited in nature to quickly disorganize the cluster.  Maybe close
	encounters with demented astronmers?  All stars hate each other?
	Anyone out there know the real reason?

  I believe it is because some of the stars are closer to the center of
the galaxy and thus are in closer and faster orbits.  Another way of
saying this is to say that they are seperated by the tidal force of the
center of the galaxy, i.e. we are within the galaxy's Roche limit.
  I think this is also why most (all?) nebulas are only a few thousand
years old.  They are pulled apart in not much more time than that.

								...Keith

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 17 Jun 83  04:05:22 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 17 Jun 83 3:57-PDT
Date: 16 Jun 83 4:07:40-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Countdown Begins
Article-I.D.: alice.1934

On schedule, at 0300 EDT this morning, the countdown for the
launch of STS-7 began with the call to stations.  The 40 hour
countdown will have 12 hours and 33 minutes of hold time.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 17 Jun 83  04:33:33 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 17 Jun 83 4:24-PDT
Date: 15 Jun 83 19:48:09-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!outer @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Thank-you NASA!
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.1538
In-Reply-To: Article <3019@utzoo.UUCP>

Yes, it certainly was impressive!  The most awesome sight in the Toronto sky
since the CN Tower was topped off by skyhook several years back, in fact.  But
even as my breath was taken away the thought struck me "I wonder if this is the
modern day equivalent of showing the flag with a battleship?".  Is it purely
co-incidental that the formal request to test the CRUISE in Canada came less
than a week after the 'courtesy' visit of the Enterprise?

Oh well, it will certainly be something to remember in my old age.  Thank-you
NASA!  

Depressingly cynical,

Richard Outerbridge, utcsrgv!outer

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 17 Jun 83  04:46:19 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 17 Jun 83 4:41-PDT
Date: 16 Jun 83 13:59:12-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: AMSAT-OSCAR-10 IS BORN!!
Article-I.D.: eagle.1003

As reported earlier via a different system (the telco was having network
problems) AMSAT-OSCAR-10 was successfully launched this morning from
Kourou, French Guiana.  Liftoff time, launcher trajectory and the
resulting orbit were all very close to nominal.

Follows is an initial element set:

International designator: 1983 058B
Satellite: oscar-10
Epoch time:      83167.50924769
   Thu Jun 16 12:13:19 1983 UTC
Inclination:        8.6010 deg
RA of node:       249.3110 deg
Eccentricity:    0.7308180
Arg of perigee:   177.8730 deg
Mean anomaly:       0.1941 deg
Mean motion:    2.27337623 rev/day
Epoch rev:               0
Semi major axis: 24437.225 km
Anom period:    633.419132 min
Apogee:          35918.245 km
Perigee:           199.917 km
Beacon:           145.8100 mhz

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 17 Jun 83  06:31:10 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 17 Jun 83 6:14-PDT
Date: 16 Jun 83 17:06:10-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Problem Eliminated -- Countdown Continues
Article-I.D.: alice.1939

NASA said this afternoon that a potential problem with one of
two master events controllers has gone away, and that the
countdown was proceeding as planned.  Weather looks ideal for
Saturday's launch.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 17 Jun 83  23:00:51 PDT
Date: Fri 17 Jun 83 22:59:04-PDT
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Solar-Sail Race
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA

[From The Institute (News Supplement to IEEE Spectrum), Vol. 7,
No. 7, July 1983.]

     Space Sport Proposed: Solar-Sail Race to the Moon
                   -- Tekla Perry

Princeton, N.J. -- Before manufacturing facilities and colonies can
be developed in space, space must become a reality for the general
public and politicians, as well as for scientists and engineers.

What better way to get the public involved in space than a sporting
event? asked Guy Pignolet of the French Space Agency in Toulouse.
He is part of an amateur organization that plans to participate in a
solar-sail race to the moon.

Previous space events, as he pointed out at the Princeton Conference
on Space Manufacturing held May 9-12, engaged the public through
television viewing only, while a solar-sail race could be directly
observed and viewers could take pictures, cheer teams, and make bets.

Such a public-relations stunt is necessary, he explained, because
though people think that colonies and manufacturing will eventually
be in space, they consider them a dream, and the development of such
facilities needs the support of socioeconomic power groups who see it
as an impending reality.  A solar-sail race, he said, can act as a
tangible intermediate step to demonstrate how close we really are to
the development of space.

It will also serve, he said, to educate "people who are essential to
the large-scale development of space -- the politicians."  They need
to be better informed, Mr. Pignolet argued, citing the fact that
earlier this year -- after five launches of the European rocket
Ariane -- a member of the U.S. House subcommittee that handles NASA
authorization thought Ariane was a manned shuttle.

The sails, which use solar pressure to navigate, can work only at
altitudes of over 1000 miles because of atmospheric drag.  Mr.
Pignolet said the racing sails, probably three in number, would be
sent to a low orbit with an Ariane launcher, then boosted high above
the atmosphere, separated from the container, and allowed to drift a
few miles apart.  A start signal would be given, and teams would take
radio control.  The sails would make approximately 100 orbits of the
earth and take one year to reach the moon, requiring much navigation
to make the best use of solar pressure.

So far, Mr. Pignolet said, three groups of amateur solar sailors have
declared their intention to participate in the race and are seeking
corporate sponsorship.  The cost of building, launching, and
operating the sails is expected to run into millions of dollars.
However, Mr. Pignolet pointed out, its costs compared with the cost
of major car- and yacht-racing events indicates its feasibility.  The
race project, he said, is still in its initial development phase.

"All those interested in space colonization and space manufacturing
can help toward its success in whatever way they can," Mr. Pignolet
said, "in order soon to have 4 billion pairs of eyes recognizing the
high frontier, and in order sooner to have 4 billion people pushing
for the opening of the high frontier."
-------

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83  02:32:28 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 2:26-PDT
Date: 17 Jun 83 0:22:14-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!jay @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-10 Scrubbed - (nf)
Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.1170

#N:hp-pcd:3400003:000:530
hp-pcd!jay    Jun 16 07:30:00 1983

	I read recently that STS-10 may be scrubbed due to lack of
cargo.  It seems that the Air Force had STS-10 reserved for carrying
a classified satellite into orbit.  But since the IUS problem has not
been solved yet, they are afraid to risk their satellite.
	It's a shame that the Air Force can yank NASA's strings like
that.  In any commercial operation, if you cancel a reservation, you 
still have to pay unless another taker can be found.  The Air Force
should pay.


	Opinions are my own,

	Jay Phillips
	...hplabs!hp-pcd!jay

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Jun-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #133    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 133

Today's Topics:
			  Need Telephone Number
			 Potential STS-7 Problem
       Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
			    STS-7 info number
			    ET Filling Begins
      SPACE Digest V3 #125     --> testing proposed rovers in desert
			  Lunar roving vehicles
			  STS-10 may be Scrubbed
			      Space yachting
		      STS-10 or NSA (take your pick)
		  Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83  04:39:27 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 4:28-PDT
Date: 16 Jun 83 9:36:47-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxo!sowajj @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Need Telephone Number
Article-I.D.: ihuxo.238

    Does anyone out in netnews land have the 900 telephone number
needed to call for shuttle info? If so, please post or send mail to me.



                                 Thanks...
                                 Jim
                                 ...ihnp4!ihuxo!sowajj

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83  05:16:38 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 5:10-PDT
Date: 16 Jun 83 10:41:46-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Potential STS-7 Problem
Article-I.D.: alice.1936

A potential problem with one of two master events controllers
has been discovered by NASA crews preparing STS-7 for lift off
this Saturday.  The controllers, among other things, oversee
the jettison of the SRB's from the orbitor 2 minutes and 17
seconds into the flight.  If the problem turns out to exist,
it will have to be either fixed or replaced before launch.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83  06:33:15 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 6:17-PDT
Date: 17 Jun 83 10:53:48-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: sun!gnu @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
Article-I.D.: sun.280

If anyone should go up in the shuttle, it should be Heinlein.

His works inspired many of the current engineers, technicians, and 
designers who have put us where we are on the edge of space.

He's also quite old (over 80) and won't achieve his 70-year dream
of making it into space, unless we send him there quickly.

He wrote a story in 1939 about the aged "father of space travel", Delos
D. Harriman, who isn't allowed into space because of government regulations
and his deteriorating medical condition.  Harriman secretly outfits a
down-on-their-luck engineer and pilot and they smuggle him to the moon,
where he dies, happily looking back at Earth, just after touchdown.  The
story is "Requiem", and it appears in _The Past Though Tomorrow_, among
many other places.

I think that the least we, as a society, can do for Mr. Robert Anton Heinlein
is to make a place in the Space Shuttle for him -- and soon, before it's
too late.

	John Gilmore

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83  06:36:16 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 6:24-PDT
Date: 16 Jun 83 14:49:42-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxo!weiss @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-7 info number
Article-I.D.: ihuxo.239

The number for STS-7 info is (900) 410-6272.
It will start ~1.5 hours before launch and
last until touchdown.


                                    Ed Weiss
                                    ihnp4!ihuxo!weiss
-- 


                                    Ed Weiss
                                    ihnp4!ihuxo!weiss

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83  07:10:15 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 6:54-PDT
Date: 18 Jun 83 2:56:36-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: ET Filling Begins
Article-I.D.: alice.1945

At 0013 EDT this (ugh) morning, NASA crews began filling the
Challenger's external tank in preparation for launch at 0733
EDT.  Weather conditions at Dakar, Senegal, the primary abort
site if an emergency arises during the crossing of the Atlantic
Ocean, were cloudy this afternoon, but NASA said they expected
them to be OK.  A final decision could be made up to 9 minutes
before the launch.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83  09:52:03 PDT
Date: 18 June 1983 12:52 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #125     --> testing proposed rovers in desert
To: MINSKY @ MIT-OZ
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

For practice at their main task, mining random moondirt, we could have
the robot cars carry water in buckets from some canal to the tomato field.

We could send them on a remote-controlled treasure hunt. The humans
have the clues and do the brainwork, the robots go around turning
their cameras on likely spots according to the human's interpretation
of the clues, and actually lugging the treasures back. Going to
various places, and lugging random things back, would really test the
ability of the rover to perform on the Moon and the ability of the
human/robot symbiosis to make field decisions and carry out useful
actions based on them. The more I think about this idea the more I
like it. The first remote-controlled treasure hunt in the world,
making a place in Guinness book of world records. -- Go to the tall
cactus, turn right, go 3 meters, turn right, find the next clue. --
Follow the dirt road North 0.4 Km, find abandoned service station,
find vending machine, press specially-marked button, collect treasure
that comes out, look at inscription on treasure for next clue.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83  10:00:00 PDT
Date: 18 June 1983 13:01 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Lunar roving vehicles
To: BRUC @ MIT-ML
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

Gee, Lunoknod was sort of what we're talking about. Seems the USSR
made the same mistake with Lunoknod that we made with Apollo, lost
interest when the adventure was no longer politically exciting, didn't
follow up with continued program in same area. -- 23 miles is a
respectable distance for a remote-controlle vehicle on the Moon. How
far did the Apollo astronauts cover on their longest trip in their
lunar dune buggy? Too bad we weren't cooperative, or we might have a
Martianod on board a Viking.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83  10:31:11 PDT
Date: 18 June 1983 13:32 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  STS-10 may be Scrubbed
To: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Gee, the proof of the pudding - all those companies complaining
because STS is several years later than originally scheduled/promised,
there ought to be a mad dash to move missions up to the STS-10 void,
thus diminishing the long wait. I wonder if any company got their
stuff ready early and can launch on demand, like in STS-10?
Eagerly awaiting the result of this interesting development...

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83  10:44:40 PDT
Date: 18 June 1983 13:46 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Space yachting
To: Howard.Gayle @ CMU-CS-G
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Hmmm, I like the idea. I doubt anyone will actually succeed at getting
to the moon the first time, probably each craft will break down before
arriving there (I may be pleasantly surprized), so we can give prizes
based on how far each craft gets before breaking down, or award prizes
based on a partial ordering of how far and how fast.

If sails unfurl to a mile across, and they reflect light in random
directions (white sails, not silver-reflecting sails), I would think
they'd be visible from Earth for a while after launch (let's see, 1
mile across at 1000 miles distance, that's about 3.5 minutes of arc,
so it'd not be easily resolvable to the nakid eye but binoculers ought
to suffice for seeing more than points of light.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83  11:46:31 PDT
Date: 18-Jun-83 11:46 PDT
From: WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2
Subject: STS-10 or NSA (take your pick)
To: space@mit-mc
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-2M8DK>

1.  Has anyone read THE PUZZLE PALACE?  I figure SPACE interest group is 
appropriate for this question because the NSA usually funds most spy satellite 
(according to the book).  Would anyone like to comment on the book's validity or
any of the subject matter?

2.  If the NSA is involved with most sigint launches, does anyone else get 
frustrated with never hearing them mentioned in media discussions?

3.  Anyone like to discuss the NSA participation in the space program (if anyone
knows)?

4.  Think I will quit with just 3 queries.

--Bill

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 19 Jun 83  01:35:29 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 23:41-PDT
Date: 17 Jun 83 16:31:43-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
Article-I.D.: sdcattb.2630
In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.1738

	That's a *great* idea!!  The space shuttle could use
Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clark as fuel also.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #134    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 134

Today's Topics:
		  L5 Society phone tree activated 830617
			      STS-7 -- Day 1
     Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
			     STS-8 Scheduled
       Re: STS-7 Preparations Proceeding -- STS-10 may be Scrubbed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 19 Jun 83  06:17:54 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 19 Jun 83 6:15-PDT
Date: 17 Jun 83 21:44:11-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: L5 Society phone tree activated 830617
Article-I.D.: csu-cs.2268

President  Reagan will give a speech  Saturday June 18 at noon (EDT?) on
the topic of American  education.  He should make  reference to a space-
related  research project being done by a student.  The phone tree folks
request  that you (a) listen to the speech  (probably  too late when you
get  this  but...)  and (b)  call the  White  House  afterwards  and say
something encouraging about space research and his speech.

White House switchboard:	1-202-456-1414
Presidential comment line:	1-202-456-7639  during business hours

Sorry,  but this time the  activation  was done with very  short  notice
(less than one day).  Frankly, it's a little silly compared to some, and
of course I may have  gotten  some of the facts  fuzzy  over the  phone.
But, until someone higher up the tree starts to post fast, accurate data
(hint, hint), I'll submit whatever I get.

Ad astra (per aspera),

Alan Silverstein, Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Systems Division, Colorado
ucbvax!hplabs!hpfcld!ajs, 303-226-3800 x3053, N 40 31'31" W 105 00'43"

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 19 Jun 83  06:57:31 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 19 Jun 83 6:56-PDT
Date: 18 Jun 83 23:29:29-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-7 -- Day 1
Article-I.D.: alice.1950

After the shortest shuttle turnaround time on record, 64 days,
the Challenger roared into orbit today.  Damage to pad 39A was
''essentially nil,'' and NASA expects to have it repaired within
one week.  The SRB's splashed down just a few miles from one of
two waiting recovery ships.  The recovery teams report minor
insulation damage to the tip of the right booster, but NASA says
it is not serious; NASA expects the boosters back in port by
tomorrow afternoon.  Sally Ride ejected the Canadian Anik-C
today, on schedule, and 45 minutes later, one of two burns from
its own rocket was conducted; the second burn, which will put it
into its proper orbit, will be held tomorrow.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 19 Jun 83  23:19:22 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 19 Jun 83 23:10-PDT
Date: 18 Jun 83 22:24:07-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!uwvax!myers @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
Article-I.D.: uwvax.934
In-Reply-To: Article <280@sun.UUCP>

Arthur C. Clarke should get a spot on the shuttle before Heinlein.

I'm basing my opinion solely on the basis of the quality of their
respective recent writings... "Fountains of Paradise" is a damn sight
better than Heinlein's recent trash.  Of course, most of Clarke's old
stuff is better than Heinlein, too.

My apologies to devout Heinlein fans.

Jeff Myers@uwvax

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83  02:15:47 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 20 Jun 83 2:09-PDT
Date: 17 Jun 83 7:18:52-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-8 Scheduled
Article-I.D.: alice.1941

With the launch of STS-7 scheduled for tomorrow, NASA has said
that the launch of STS-8 will occur at 0230 EDT (ugh) on 14
August.  It will be the first after-dark launch of the space
shuttle.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83  02:40:28 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 20 Jun 83 2:24-PDT
Date: 18 Jun 83 11:20:34-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!watmath!watcgl!mabgarstin @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: STS-7 Preparations Proceeding -- STS-10 may be Scrubbed
Article-I.D.: watcgl.496
In-Reply-To: Article <1920@alice.UUCP>

   A WHOLE payload empty on STS-10!!!!

   Quick G. Lucas, here's you're chance, grab the old 70mm, a couple of model
and special effects guys and a couple of those real neat models and get your
tail in gear and book that mission. Maybe we can get a REAL Death Star
explosion ans destruction in space now.

   Does anyone out there think we need to pass the hat to help out with this?

   If George can't make it (stuck in court with some down to earth divorce
stuff) maybe we can pass the hat and send someone else. Let's see hands of
who would volunteer for such a perilous mission. Why do I only see my hand
up?


                                                    MAB

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #135    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 135

Today's Topics:
			     Phase III AMSAT
	    Retransmitting Shuttle Communications on HAM Bands
			  Test pilot astronauts
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #133
     Re: Let"s make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
       Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
		  Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
		whom to send to space, SFiction and SFact
	       Let's ban SF writers from the Space Shuttle!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83  03:17:32 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 20 Jun 83 3:09-PDT
Date: 17 Jun 83 9:54:27-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!microsof!fluke!vax2.limey @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Phase III AMSAT
Article-I.D.: vax2.566

Does anybody know whether Phase III AMSAT (HAM Satelite) has
gone up yet. If so, is it operational?

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83  03:31:18 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 20 Jun 83 3:12-PDT
Date: 17 Jun 83 11:15:47-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!microsof!fluke!vax2.limey @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Retransmitting Shuttle Communications on HAM Bands
Article-I.D.: vax2.567

Does anybody know if tomorrows Shuttle communications will be
retransmitted on the HAM Bands? If so, what's the frequencies?

KW7Y and KI7H and N7AME

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83  04:08:57 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 20 Jun 83 3:53-PDT
Date: 19 Jun 83 14:30:07-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!gummo!wje @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Test pilot astronauts
Article-I.D.: gummo.817

Does anyone know how many American astronauts that have been sent into space
were test pilots?
			Bill Eagan
			groucho!wje
			gummo!wje

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83  05:46:26 PDT
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 83 08:46 EDT
From: Kovnat.HENR@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #133
In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 19 Jun 83 03:03 PDT"
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Kovnat.HENR@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Does anyone know what happened to the TDRS satellite launched by STS-6?  Did
NASA ever manage to get it to the proper orbit using the maneuvering thrusters?

Larry Kovnat  <Kovnat.henr@PARC-MAXC>

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83  06:03:03 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 20 Jun 83 5:55-PDT
Date: 19 Jun 83 17:58:20-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!hao!csu-cs!silver @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Let"s make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
Article-I.D.: csu-cs.2271
In-Reply-To: Article sun.280

Sounds good.  Now, how *exactly* do you propose we go about it?

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83  06:27:54 PDT
Date: 20 June 1983 09:11 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
To: sun!gnu @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

It would be a shame if Heinlein died on the shuttle, thus marring our
perfect in-flight record (we lost some astronauts during training, and
thre during a fire onboard Apollo on ground, but none yet in space or
during actual launch or landing; Russians have been less fortunate).
But on the other hand it might be fitting for Heinlein to die in
space.  I think we ought to check his health first, and then really
think this out before we do it. But since he wrote the story about
just this sort of hack, persumably he had plenty of time to think
about it, and really does prefer dying in space to dying on Earth
never having been to space. -- Has he been asked if he still wants to
go to space even if it kills him? (However it would be a shame if he
died during ascent, thus never being to space alive, only as dead cargo.)

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83  06:30:34 PDT
Date: 20 June 1983 09:21 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger
To: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 17 Jun 83 16:31:43-PDT (Fri)
    From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 @ Ucb-Vax
    	That's a *great* idea!!  The space shuttle could use
    Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clark as fuel also.
I think this whole set of message from you and others suggesting
presently-living human beings be used as fuel, is really sick.
Please cease that.
There are other more humane and intelligent ways to say you think
sending a particular person to space will be counter-productive, and to
explain why you think so.
Please do that instead.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83  06:49:56 PDT
Date: 20 June 1983 09:32 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: whom to send to space, SFiction and SFact
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I propose we submit the question "what science-fiction writer most
derserves to get a ride on the shuttle" to SF-Lovers and let them
decide. Meanwhile we can concentrate on non-fiction science people
like Sagan. That way the debate over which sf writers have produced
the best work lately won't intrude on our non-fiction discussins of
space. Ok with others?
Then we'll have two candidates, one fiction and one non-fiction, and
we can either pick between them or suggest both be sent (I prefer the
latter, after all the STS has a lot of extra unused crew space, only 5
now, room for how many I don't remember, and the balance of viewpoint
should be good, the charm and wild fantasies and ideas of a fiction
author combined with the realism of a non-fiction person).

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83  21:02:48 PDT
Date: 21 June 1983 00:03 EDT
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Let's ban SF writers from the Space Shuttle!
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC
cc: SASW @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of 18 Jun 83 22:24:07-PDT (Sat) from harpo!seismo!uwvax!myers at Ucb-Vax

Let's also ban silly messages saying how the sender's favorite SF author
should get a ride on the Shuttle!  Putting an SF author on the Shuttle
is like preaching to the converted.  Let's put someone up there who has
clout and who can be inspired.

-- Steve

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #136    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 136

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Space yachting
			 Heinlein on the Shuttle.
      Belated voice notes (January, TCP not yet working then), IRAS
     Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
     Re: Let"s make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
			 Runga-Kutta for orbits?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 83 14:30:51-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!qubix!msc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space yachting

Yes, Arthur C. C.larke described a very similar idea, but with manned yachts,
in "The Winds from the Sun"
-- 
	Mark
	...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix!msc
	...{ittvax,amd70}!qubix!msc
	decwrl!qubix!msc@Berkeley.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 83 11:01:20 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Poskanzer.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Heinlein on the Shuttle.
To: REM@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA, SF-LOVERS@MIT-MC.ARPA

Actually, we don't have to worry about his health, at least to a first
approximation.  NASA did a bunch of centrifuge tests on ordinary people
of various ages, and found that the older you are, the better you are
able to withstand g's.  The theory is that harder arteries and higher
blood pressure keep the blood where it belongs.

Does this mean that aspiring shuttle pilots should eat bacon and eggs
three times a day to "build up" their circulatory system?  Probably not,
since withstanding g's (and only three of them at that) is a very small
part of the mission.  However, for aspiring shuttle passengers who don't
expect to do anything except get shuttled, maybe so, maybe so...
---
Jef

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 21 Jun 83  17:51:02 PDT
Date: 21 June 1983 20:50 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Belated voice notes (January, TCP not yet working then), IRAS
To: rem @ SU-AI
cc: REM @ MIT-MC, SPACE @ MIT-MC

Wed, Jan 26
According to KPIX channel 5 news, the new infrared satellite will send
back to Earth just a few hundred bits of information a day. That
sounds like an extremely low data rate. There must be some kind of
stupid error in their reporting. -- I think they said 600 bits per day.
That's ridiculous.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 83 10:28:14-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!linus!utzoo!watmath!watcgl!gcsherwood @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle

I frankly doubt the idea has much chance (a snowball's chance...) but
what the hell.  I do disagree with the Clarke vs Heinlein observation.
Agreed, Fountains of Paradise is better than Heinlein's recent stuff.
However, Heinlein at his best (such as Moon is a Harsh Mistress) is
superior to anything penned (or typed, whatever) by Clarke.  I like
Clarke's stuff too, but Heinlein (at his best) is far better.
	- geoff sherwood -
	- U. of Waterloo -

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83  01:13:17 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 22 Jun 83 1:09-PDT
Date: 20 Jun 83 10:15:20-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!linus!utzoo!watmath!watarts!bernie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Let"s make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
Article-I.D.: watarts.1883
In-Reply-To: Article uwvax.934

The current shuttle crew is five, but it can get by with as few as two;
why not send *all three* people under consideration so far: Heinlein, Clarke
*and* Lucas?  It wouldn't be all that expensive; in fact, they could even be
a part of an already-scheduled mission in which no payload specialists are
required (surely they won't be needing payload specialists for all missions).

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83  02:30:09 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 22 Jun 83 2:25-PDT
Date: 17 Jun 83 17:29:23-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Runga-Kutta for orbits?
Article-I.D.: inuxc.699

	Well after spending an afternoon working out the math
it seems that a 4th order Runga Kutta numeric integration is exactly
equivalent to....

	x=xo+vo*t+.5*a*t**2

for n body problem, point gravity, no drag. That explains
why Lew had reasonable results using it in college. The error
using this form will be of the order of...
	
	fifth derivative of position*(time step)**5

	
a good approximation. It also means that this method should be good 
enough to start a predictor- corrector integration instead of having
to go through the pain of starting it with R-K.

	I'm off fishing for a week.

				Fred (ABI till August)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Jun-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #137    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 137

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Asimov as a shuttle passenger
			    Palapa B Launched
			      Shuttle Update
     Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
		      Book on military use of space
			      SPAS Released
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83  03:30:15 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 22 Jun 83 3:13-PDT
Date: 21 Jun 83 14:03:26-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rochester!FtG @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Asimov as a shuttle passenger
Article-I.D.: rocheste.2022
In-Reply-To: Article <2335@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Hey folks- Isaac Asimov is AFRAID OF FLYING. He mentions this quite
frequently and also points out that he is perfectly content to
just watch the other people go into space. Now maybe if Amtrak
went to the Moon ....
					FtG

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83  03:42:15 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 22 Jun 83 3:40-PDT
Date: 19 Jun 83 18:17:45-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Palapa B Launched
Article-I.D.: rabbit.1611

The crew of STS-7 today completed their major mission goal in
successfully deploying the Indonesian satellite Palapa B.  Yesterday,
Anik C of Canada was similarly ejected.  Wednesday, the crew
will let loose a West German satellite from the RMS and then,
one orbit later, pick it back up and place it back in the cargo
bay.  It will be the first time such an operation has occurred.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83  05:15:58 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 22 Jun 83 4:45-PDT
Date: 21 Jun 83 22:23:33-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle Update
Article-I.D.: alice.1955

Crippen turned the shuttle first towards the sun, then away from
the sun, then towards the Earth today in an effort to control the
temperature on SPAS-1, the West German satellite to be deployed
and retrieved tomorrow.  Meanwhile, Anik-C and Palapa-B, released
over the weekend, reached thei intended orbits with no problems.
NASA also announced that TDRS-1 should be in the proper orbit
by Monday.

Conditions at KSC were not favorable today for a landing, and
NASA reports that the weather does not look good for either tomorrow
or Thursday.  Friday, the scheduled landing day, is still iffy.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83  05:16:08 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 22 Jun 83 5:09-PDT
Date: 21 Jun 83 16:33:19-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!tom @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.684

References: uwvax.934 <1883@watarts.UUCP>

WHAT!  Put Lucas in the same category (much less the same shuttle) as
Heinlein and Clarke!  No way!

The Star Wars saga may be entertaining, exciting, and cute, but they
are no justification for honoring the man in such a way.  I thought
the original proposals for Heinlein and Clarke were based on their
attempts at serious scientific fiction and their abilities to postulate
reasonable scientific achievments of the future and their consequences.
I thoroughly enjoyed Star Wars, but Ewoks, ineffective blasters (and
armor), crash-happy vehicles, magical Forces, some nice asteroid shots,
and good-guys versus bad-guys plots just don't make the grade.

If we must round out a trilogy, I say we exhume the body of Jules Verne,
and give him the ride.  Perhaps a burial in space ...

- Tom Beres
{seismo, allegra, mcnc}!rlgvax!tom

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83  06:47:46 PDT
Date: 22 Jun 1983 0647-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Book on military use of space
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: Space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]22-Jun-83 06:47:16.WMARTIN>

SPACE readers may want to check their local libraries for a new
book on space war and military space operations:

Karas, Thomas THE NEW HIGH GROUND (Strategies and Weapons of
Space-Age War), 1983, Simon and Schuster

(Interesting note: the subtitle given above is the one on the dust
jacket; the title page of the book has the subtitle "SYSTEMS and
Weapons of Space Age War".)

The book has sections describing the military and industrial
space establishments, the various items of hardware, and the
techniques of space-based military operations.

There is an interesting bibliographic reference in the
introduction.  Many of the military Karas interviewed recommended
he read a book by DeWitt S. Copp, A FEW GREAT CAPTAINS
(Doubleday, 1980).  This is a history of five pioneering officers
who helped form the US Air Force by splitting it away from the
Army.  The "spacemen" in the Air Force are looking to it for
inspiration for doing the same for a Space Force separate from
the USAF.

Regards, Will Martin

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 23 Jun 83  02:14:27 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 23 Jun 83 2:12-PDT
Date: 22 Jun 83 4:28:31-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SPAS Released
Article-I.D.: alice.1956

SPAS was released by the RMS early this morning and is now floating
free of the shuttle, as Crippen and Hauck maneuver about it.  The
satellite, in addition to taking measurements of the effects of
such maneuvers on nearby satellites, is taking the first-ever from
space, out-of-ship view of the shuttle against the Earth.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Jun-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #138    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 138

Today's Topics:
			      SPAS Recovered
     Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle
		      Friday Landing at KSC in Doubt
		      Asimov as a shuttle passenger
		  First out-of-ship pictures of shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 83 10:38:41-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SPAS Recovered

After releasing the West German SPAS satellite from the cargo
bay by means of the RMS, Crippen and Hauck perfermed some out
of plane maneuvers around the satellite, and then Sally Ride
successfully regrappled the satellite, floating in space, with
the arm.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 83 9:16:21-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihldt!juracan @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle

How about Isaac Asimov for the trilogy, instead of Lucas?
After all he won a Hugo for "putting the Science in Science Fiction".

					Teodoro Alonso
					ihnss!ihldt!juracan

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 83 15:20:31-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Friday Landing at KSC in Doubt

Predictions of scattered clouds and rain over KSC for Friday
have put Friday morning's landing in doubt.  NASA will decide
tomorrow whether to land Friday at EAFB or to wait until
Saturday or Sunday and try to land at KSC.  The shuttle has
enough supplies to orbit until Sunday.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 1983 10:28:16-EDT
From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Asimov as a shuttle passenger

   A's fear of flying is well known; however, he's going to be Guest of Honor
at an upcoming English SF convention, and there's some doubt that he has the
time for an ocean crossing. . . .

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 23 June 1983 12:44:58 EDT
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: space@mc
cc: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!alb@Ucb-Vax
Subject: First out-of-ship pictures of shuttle

	..!alice!alb @ ucb-Vax:
	[SPAS] is taking the first-ever from
	space, out-of-ship view of the shuttle against the Earth.

Well, for public consumption, anyway.  It's a good bet that Columbia
was scrutinized by U.S. reconnaissance satellites on its first flight,
reassuring NASA and the crew about the integrity of the tiles on the
bottom and leading edges.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #139    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 139

Today's Topics:
			  Shuttle Landing Report
			 Shuttle to Land Tomorrow
			  Shuttle History Wanted
			Re: Dial-a-Shuttle - (nf)
			  Re: Shuttle passengers
			mission video tapes wanted
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 83 10:38:44-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle Landing Report

As yet unconfirmed reports say that NASA has decided to postpone
until Saturday morning the landing of the Challenger at KSC.  If
the weather there is still bad Saturday, the Challenger would
land at EAFB.  NASA should release an official statement later
today.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 83 13:51:59-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle to Land Tomorrow

Recent word from NASA is that the Challenger will attempt to land
at KSC tomorrow, as weather outlooks for that region have brightened
and are now within NASA's acceptance limits.  If the shuttle cannot
land at KSC tomorrow, it will most probably be redirected to EAFB.
A potential fuel problem with one of three APU's has forced NASA
to abandon plans to delay the landing until the weekend, even though
the shuttle can land with only one of the three working.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 83 17:29:16-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: sun!altos86!eric @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle History Wanted

Can someone mail to me, post to the net, or point me to the following
information for each manned shuttle mission to date?

	- Full names of all crew members
	- Which shuttle was used
	- Launch date and time
	- Total elapsed time of the mission
	- Number of revolutions (orbits)
	- Landing site
	- A brief description of the main events of the mission

Information would be greatly appreciated. Also, does anyone have any
information on the National Space Institute, the organization that
is sponsoring the Dial-a-Shuttle number? Is it an organization
worth joining?
			Eric Smith

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 83 22:52:06-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!keller @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Dial-a-Shuttle - (nf)

	I called Dial-a-Shuttle yesterday (Tues 6-21-83) and got to hear
the wake up music (Texas A&M and U. Wash. fight songs) and then a few
minutes of ground crew - shuttle interaction. It was fun because they talked
about the temperature of the German sats. computer.
	Don't expect to hear the astronauts on your first call. The shuttle
is only in contact for about 20% of its orbit. Plus you have to catch them
when they are awake! NSI runs the show like an all news station with plenty
of promotion of NSI. You'll need to listen for a while to find out the
next contact time, and then call back.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 83 12:54 CDT (Friday)
From: HOWARD.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Shuttle passengers
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: HOWARD.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Instead of all this talk of sending SF writers and producers on a shuttle mission
why don't we just send mass murderers, dictators, and other people who try their
best to make this a hell on earth.  That way we could put them out in space the
same way we did the SPAS satellite.  However, we wouldn't have any intentions
of retrieving them.

				Doug Howard

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 83 12:29:28-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!wivax!linus!philabs!micomvax!micomz!softech @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: mission video tapes wanted

	I am looking for any kind of video tape of broadcasts from space mission
astronauts made during the flight. If someone out there knows if NASA publishes
such things, please send some pointers. I know that during a mission, NASA has
a broadcast channel to TV networks, which pick it up, edit it, and make news
out of it. I'm interested in the original stuff, ie the NASA channel output,
with conversations between ground and craft unaltered by Cronkite's comments.

	I am interested in Appolo and Shuttle missions, but any manned mission
is acceptable.

Richard Blouin,
!philabs!micomvax!micomz!softech

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #140    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 140

Today's Topics:
	     Landing Delayed Again -- Shuttle to Land at EAFB
			postage stamp for shuttle
			 Challenger QSO Schedules
		 Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf)
		       Re: Challenger QSO Schedules
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 83 3:52:06-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Landing Delayed Again -- Shuttle to Land at EAFB

NASA has just announced that, due to continuing fog and overcast
conditions at KSC, the Challenger will land at EAFB at 0957 EDT.
The landing at EAFB, which is still fully equipped, will add
about 6 days onto the turnaround time for STS-8, putting a late
August launch date in doubt.  STS-8 is scheduled to launch at
0230 EDT and land also at EAFB in the first night landing for a
shuttle.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 83 15:17:38-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!aluxz!mhuxj!presley @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: postage stamp for shuttle

>From the June 27 issue of the newspaper "Stamp Collector":

	The US Postal Service, which needs a $9.35 stamp for Express Mail, will
	inaugurate one on "space mail" covers, ...

	The rate is for next-day delivery of a package weighing up to two
	pounds.  The special stamp will be issued Aug. 14 at the Kennedy Space
	Center in Florida.

	The space covers will be part of the payload for the Challenger,
	scheduled for liftoff at the Kennedy Space Center the same day.

	The exact number of envelopes bearing the stamps ... has not yet been
	determined ...

	The tentative price ... is $15 a cover.

	The Postal Service preference has been for 500,000 covers as adequate to
	meet estimated philatelic and public requirements.
-- 
	Joe Presley (...!mhuxj!presley, harpo!presley)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 83 19:51:11-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekecs!philb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Challenger QSO Schedules

I would be very interested in finding out the information necessary to
make a contact with the astronaut/ham on the next orbiter flight.  Would
some one please post the times, areas covered, protocol, and callsigns
necessary to do this??? I would very much like to make a contact with the
orbiter during this flight. Maybe make a date with Ms. Ride......

How about shuttle audio rebroadcasts on hf or 2m. Any one know about that
(2m in Portland area)?

Congrats on the sucessful Phase 3B launch!!!

					73`s and tnx
					Phil Biehl, KA6YEP
					tekecs!philb

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 83 5:43:28-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!ima!inmet!tower @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf)

Though I like the idea of honoring those who have inspired us into space
(e.g. Clarke and Heinlein)....

It makes a lot of sense to use spare Shuttle seats to send up anit-space
people, "spend the money here" people, and influential politicians.

David Stockman (OMB), Jesse Jackson, and Senator Proxmire, come to mind.

If we can show these people some of the grandeur, perhaps we can get more
$$ from them to help insure our future. [and if one congressman made the
junket, more will, so they would increase shuttle funding .....]

I'm sure the game could get very complex - hopefully, NASA has very good
PR and budget people.

-len tower harpo!inmet!tower

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 83 9:28:35-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Challenger QSO Schedules

First of all, it won't be the next shuttle flight, it'll be STS-9.  Owen
Garriot, W5LFL, will be the operator as he is a mission specialist for
that flight.  The orbiter will be Columbia, not Challenger.

This particular flight has another advantage in that the inclination will
be 57 degrees instead of the usual 28.5 degrees.  This will cover northern
latitudes much better, but the passes will still be very brief.

The operating protocol will most likely consist of alternate one minute
transmit and receive periods.  Owen will scan a range of uplinks on 2
meters (not including his own transmit frequency), record the calls he
hears, and then read them off on his downlink frequency during the
alternate minute.

Read July QST for further details.  ARRL & AMSAT will be working jointly
on disseminating info on this project.

Phil Karn, KA9Q

PS. Sally Ride is married.  Sorry.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #141    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 141

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #140
			     Shuttle schedule
		  Shuttle passengers - criminals one-way
			Re:  SPACE Digest V3 #135
		 Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 27 Jun 83  09:24:32 PDT
Date: 27 Jun 83 9:36:58 PDT
From: lamming.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #140
In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 27 Jun 83 03:02 PDT"
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: lamming.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA


Is what you hear on the shuttle 900 number rebroadcast on a Ham
frequency.  Who would know?  Did I miss the answer?

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 27 Jun 83  15:36:55 PDT
Date:  27 June 1983 18:34 edt
From:  Schauble.HIS_Guest at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Shuttle schedule
To:  space at MIT-MC

Can anyone provide a list of planned launch dates for the rest of the
year? I will be on the East Coast several times and would like to attend
one.

          Paul

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 27 Jun 83  16:53:18 PDT
Date: 27 June 1983 19:50 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Shuttle passengers - criminals one-way
To: HOWARD.DLOS @ PARC-MAXC
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 27 Jun 83 08:54 CDT (Monday)
    From: HOWARD.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
    	OK. I agree that my idea might be a little bit exteme and
    wasteful, but consider this.  It is much cheaper to send people
    one-way rather than round trip.
I don't see this at all in the case of STS. Virtually all the fuel
used by the shuttle is consumed during the launch phase, virtually
none of it during orbit or descent. Witness two large solid-rocket
boosters whose fuel fully is consumed only partway up, and the
even-larger liquid fuel tank whose fuel is also fully consumed partway
up. Only the little orbiter, with its miniscule fuel supply, is needed
for actually reaching orbit (after almost reaching orbit) and for
doing all the experiments and for the de-orbit burn. Carrying a person
back to Earth, or leaving hir in space, doesn't make more than a tiny
difference in fuel requirements, and of course makes zero difference
in any other costs asociated with the flight. -- Furthermore, the
return you get on the criminal's trip to space is infitesimal compared
to the return you get on an intelligent scientist/writer. Unless you
can show some return to the investors (presently the taxpayers) that
is worth the cost, your idea is unworkable.

    	As for your comments about my character,  am I sick just
    because I would like to see a person who has killed dozens of
    people put to death, or am I an idiot because I expect to see them
    justly punished.
No, neither. Because you propose wasting a very precious resource,
fuel and passenger-space on STS, to do something (execute a criminal)
in a way that is inferior to the usual ways (gas chamber, electric
chair, hanging, firing squad). Important experiments and projects are
backed up years, delayed because of not enough STS capability (the
original delay is because the STS was several years behind schedule,
but if STS had infinite capacity then we could instantly clear up that
backlog and offer crew and payload space for new experiments). Other
experiments and projects aren't being done at all even though they are
urgent. Only a deranged mind, or a diobolical enemy of the space
program, would seriously propose consuming valuable crew space in the
way you proposed. -- As to why STS space-dumping is inferior to
existing ways, let me cite several: (1) last-minute appeals such as a
pardon or stay-of-execution by the governor are very hard to do when
the STS is scheduled to go up on a certain day, or if it's already in
orgit when the delay of execution occurs; (2) the executed criminal
would beome famous, sort of a martyr, dying in space, not the sort of
thing you want a mass-murderer to be glorified by; (3) there's an
international legal problem and public-relations problem when he body
starts to return to Earth, after all would you want the ashes of a
mass-murderer raining down on your city, or even a few unvaporized
pieces of skull or hip bone crashing through your roof, especially if
you believed that the soul of the departed murderer would invite a
curse on you? -- The whole proposal is absurd. How could you ever
seriously propose it? (Please supply advantages to your proposal, as I
have above supplied specific dis-advantages and excessive cost.)

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 27 Jun 83  20:13:54 PDT
Date:     Mon, 27 Jun 83 22:59:08 EDT
From:     J. C. Pistritto <jcp@brl-bmd>
To:       Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc
Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V3 #135

TDRS-A's fate:

	Last I heard, (last weeks Aviation Week & Space Technology, a mag
all SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS should read...), the TDRS-A was in an almost circular
orbit at around 21400 miles.  Final orbit will be 22300 miles, (geosynchronous).

	Movement of the satellite to final position was being accomplished
with less fuel than anticipated, and about 400 lbs. of manuevering propellent
will be left, (TDRS-A needs only ~250 lbs for its entire 10yr design life).

	The extra fuel was left on board after a C-band precision accuracy
transponder requirement was deleted from the mission at the last minute.
C-band operation was to be on a commercial basis, and approximately 1600lb
of fuel was included in the satellite for that purpose.  That fuel saved
the day when the Boeing/NASA Inertial Upper Stage failed to make its
second circularization burn after release from Challenger, (the first
orbital transfer injection burn was nominal), and left the satellite in
an orbit about 21700 X 12000 or so.  (very messy).  Several of the orbital
positioning thrusters were damaged during seperation of the IUS as well,
making the transfer process tricky.  Since no communication tests have
been conducted yet with the satellite in its Earth-stabilized mode, it
is unknown if any communications equipment was damaged although it seems
unlikely.

						-JCP-

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 27 Jun 83  23:40:08 PDT
Date: 28 June 1983 02:38 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf)
To: decvax!cca!ima!inmet!tower @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Hmmm, sending up money-tight people like Proxmire might be a good
idea, providing it doesn't backfire. They might be so blind as to say
"this is a joy ride, grandeur, why should taxpayers finance people on
joy rides?" and totally miss the science that is going on at the same time.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #142    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 142

Today's Topics:
		       Re:  STS-10 may be Scrubbed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 28 Jun 83  17:44:08 PDT
Received: by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.346/3.33)
	id AA01741; 27 Jun 83 15:01:09 PDT (Mon)
Date: 27 Jun 83 15:01:09 PDT (Mon)
From: research!alb@Berkeley
Message-Id: <8306272201.AA01741@UCBVAX.ARPA>
To: rem@MIT-MC
Subject: Re:  STS-10 may be Scrubbed
Cc: SPACE@MIT-MC

The word from NASA was that no company who has payloads
scheduled for 1984 was able to volunteer their cargo
for STS-10.  It does now look like the mission will in
fact be scrubbed, but it's too early to tell for sure.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Jun-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #143    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 143

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Empty STS-10?
		     Re: Test pilot astronauts - (nf)
			      Damage Report
		   Proposing writer for a shuttle trip.
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #142
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #142
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 Jun 83  04:33:12 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 28 Jun 83 23:57-PDT
Date: 20 Jun 83 10:31:31-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: bart @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Empty STS-10?
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.342
In-Reply-To: Article <566@vax2.UUCP>

I'm ready.  If nobody else is willing to go, what the heck.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 Jun 83  04:50:31 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 29 Jun 83 4:39-PDT
Date: 21 Jun 83 4:05:49-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Test pilot astronauts - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.118

#R:gummo:-81700:ucbesvax:8700002:000:1530
ucbesvax!turner    Jun 21 01:56:00 1983

	On the question of how many astronauts have been test-pilots, at
on time or another, I can only say that it's probably a slimmer majority
now than before the shuttle.

	I was surprised to see how many shuttlenauts are Navy officers.
Or I *was* surprised, until I remembered that the early days of the space
program were enlivened by a competition between the Air Force and the
Navy.  NASA was, I think, created to resolve this tension.

	When you think of how the Russians have been doing soft ground-
landings almost from the start, and how "splash-down" was SOP for the
U.S. until the shuttle, one wonders whether the Navy didn't have some-
thing to do with the American Way of Re-entry.  Pomp and Circumstance
for an event of indefinite location is a little easier to arrange on a
movable surface like an aircraft carrier.  Those Siberian Plump-Downs
must be rather dismal affairs by comparison.

	Another interesting thing (to me): as far as I know, there has
not yet been a non-U.S. citizen put into orbit by NASA (though I've heard
that a Puerto Rican is cheduled).   By contrast, the USSR has launched
astronauts from most Eastern Bloc countries, as well as one Mongolian and
one Frenchman.  (-: I can't wait for the first Palestinian.  Maybe Arafat
will start talking about a homeland in one of the Earth-Luna libration
points, assuming Israel doesn't get there first. :-)

	Michael Turner
	ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner

P.S.  If a computer can make Time's "Man of the Year" cover, surely
      Dr. Ride will have no trouble.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 Jun 83  07:31:26 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 29 Jun 83 6:08-PDT
Date: 25 Jun 83 22:05:43-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Damage Report
Article-I.D.: alice.1986

Challenger suffered only minor damage during its second flight.
On preliminary examination, workers at EAFB found 25 tiles severely
damaged, probably during launch.  Also, one of four brake assemblies
broke apart during landing, though it posed no danger to the crew.
The brakes are designed to survive five landings without repair.

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 Jun 83  07:32:06 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 29 Jun 83 6:40-PDT
Date: 22 Jun 83 11:16:20-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekecs!ews @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Proposing writer for a shuttle trip.
Article-I.D.: tekecs.1467

Let's send someone who's really influenced America's outlook on space travel -
Jimmy Buffet (..somewhere over China...).

	ews

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 Jun 83  07:53:20 PDT
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 83 07:59 EDT
From: Kovnat.HENR@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #142
In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 29 Jun 83 03:02 PDT"
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Kovnat.HENR@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

I'm curious as to whether any of the "reusable" solid-rocket boosters from any of
the space shuttle missions have in fact been reused?  Does anyone know?

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 Jun 83  07:53:33 PDT
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 83 09:53 CDT
From: Howard.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #142
In-reply-to: Shuttling criminals
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Howard.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA, Robert Elton Maas <REM@MIT-MC.ARPA>

First, a 200 lb. man is not going to require a whole lot of extra fuel,
considering that he makes up less than .1% of the shuttle's weight (of
course, that is including the cargo's weight but minus the enormous fuel
tanks' weight).  In fact, most of the cost involved in sending a person
round trip is the enormous amount of training it takes to make sure that
passenger will not endanger the mission or the other passengers.
However, if you're going to send a person on a one-way trip who will not
be gathering imformation, it would be easier to have him go unconscious.
Therefore you save thousands of dollars by not having to train this
person.( that is, if you don't dump the space suit with the convict)

Second, by shuttling mass murderers you would be protecting the public
from a mentally imbalanced person, but you would get no return one
taking a sf writer ( scientists are a different matter, but I didn't
complain about them going ) for the following reasons.  Now that the
shuttle has finally started shuttling, the program is in no immediate
danger, so why do you need to convert the masses.  Eventually when it
starts making a profit and is turned over to the private sector of
business,  the only deciding factor for continuing is whether or not
that business turns a profit.  If the public doesn't like seeing the
money spent for the shuttle, then that's their problem.

Third, my proposal is not wasteful, in fact is efficient.  Consider the
fact that airlines lose money whenever considerably less than a full
load because they use the approximately the same amount of fuel in
flying 20 passengers as they do in flying 200.  Therefore, why is taking
an extra passenger or two wasteful, when the shuttle as always flown
with less than 50% full capacity.

Finally, STS dumping is not inferior to other means of execution.  If a
stay of execution is granted before the prisoner is dumped, then the
astronauts can be notified( we do have two-way communication available
with the shuttle).  The first ones to be executed will not be glorified,
rather they will become answers to trivia questions( we would not want
to execute a person whose guilt is in doubt anyway ).  Since, the
executee will not be wearing a space suit upon release from the shuttle,
the only way to know where he's at is to go up and look for him .  And
for you to suggest that there is any possibility of him not being
totally vaporized is ridiculous and if any ashes did fall to earth they
would be so widely scattered that you wouldn't know they were ashes(not
to mention the fact that you couldn't even predict where they would
fall.)

Mr. Maas, as you can see, my proposal is not absurd, although if you
still think so, then I suggest that you sit down and seriously think
about my proposal before coming up with any objections( something that I
don't believe you have done yet ).  And after you have finished that,
then I hope you can find the time to write me an apology for calling me
a "sick idiot".

Doug

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #144    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 144

Today's Topics:
			      solar sailing
			 Shuttle en Route to KSC
			     TDRS-1 in Place
	       Re: Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 1983 1249-EDT
From: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Subject: solar sailing

Re: disposing of criminals by tossing them out of the shuttle:
The way to execute someone is to put a gun to their temple and pull the
trigger.  Why is this being discussed on SPACE at all?  Let's talk about
more reasonable subjects.

    The idea of the solar sail race to the moon is intriguing.  Bruce Cohen
proposed a similar mission to L5 on this list six months ago.  Do you think
they read SPACE at the French space agency?  The problem with their scheme is
that putting something on top of Ariane seems too expensive to make such a race
feasible. How can it be done with the shuttle?   As the article about the race
pointed out, a sail cannot be unfurled below an altitude of a thousand miles,
and the shuttle only goes up to two hundred.  How can we get the extra altitude?
NASA does it with the Inertial Upper Stage, but that gets us back to
multi-million dollar rockets.   Plus, as the TDRSS folks discovered, they tend
to explode. 
    The race will take years, so we're in no great hurry to get up there.
Why not use an ion rocket?   They don't need much fuel and can be powered by
solar cells.  Because their thrust is so low, amateurs can build them
in their basements.   The builders wouldn't need huge test fixtures to
keep their rockets from getting away, or concrete bunkers to observe
their experiments from.   The rocket would have to be pretty small, so one
could experiment with a lot of different designs without having to invest
too much in them.   And, since such low-power stuff has little military
application, the experimenters could trade info without worrying about it
being classified.
    The scale I'm thinking of is that of the getaway specials, a couple of
hundred pounds.  NASA won't let the present getaway specials have their
own motive power because of the chance that they'll bash into the shuttle
itself.   The acceleration of these guys would be so low, however, that
the risk of damage would be slight.  A greater danger would come from the
ion exhaust.  The stream of charged particles might damage radio equipment.
At the very least, the plasma cloud could cut off radio contact with the 
ground.  There might be some way to neutralize the exhaust before it leaves
the rocket, perhaps by shooting out parallel streams of ions and electrons.
Come to think of it, you would have to do something like this to prevent
the rocket from becoming negatively charged.
     Does anyone out there know anything about ion rockets, about what
research has already been done?  Given a certain vehicle mass and a certain
amount of power available, how much fuel would it take to get up to solar
sail altitudes within, say, a year?

John Redford
DEC Hudson

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 83  1045 PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW@S1-A>
To:   space@MIT-MC

	Date: 21 Jun 83 4:05:49-PDT (Tue)
	From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix <con't>
		!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax

	When you think of how the Russians have been doing soft ground-
	landings almost from the start, and how "splash-down" was SOP for the
	U.S. until the shuttle, one wonders whether the Navy didn't have some-
	thing to do with the American Way of Re-entry.  Pomp and Circumstance
	for an event of indefinite location is a little easier to arrange on a
	movable surface like an aircraft carrier.  Those Siberian Plump-Downs
	must be rather dismal affairs by comparison.

I believe that the ''official'' reason for wet landings is a matter of both
weight and safety.  Why carry lots of shock absorbers into space when you've
got a couple of nice cushy oceans right nearby.  And the sudden stop at
the end of a ground landing (even if the chutes *don't* fail) is nobody's
idea of fun.

As for the Russian Plump-Downs, for quite some time the Russian
cosmonauts ejected from their Vostoks and landed separately, for exactly
the same reasons of safety.  This practice ended shortly before the
flight of Valentina Tereshkova, I believe.  (Side-note: Tereshkova
was selected mostly on the basis of her looks, since she was flown
primarily for publicity value.  Since nobody wanted to take chances
she was kept heavily sedated for the duration of the flight.  During
the landing, the sedative wore off, and when the spacecraft was found
by the locals, they found the Heroine of the State outside the
Voshkod, puking her guts out in a reaction to the drugs.  So despite
what the popular press has been saying, the first *qualified* woman
to go into space was Svetlana Savitskaya, last year.)  --Tom

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 83 11:50:53-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle en Route to KSC

The Challenger left Kelly AFB (not Sheppard AFB as had originally
been planned) for KSC today at 0600 CDT.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 83 17:03:37-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: TDRS-1 in Place

With a final 5 minutes, 48 second burn today, TDRS-1
was nudged into its intended circular orbit of 22,236
miles.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 83 15:37:00-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!sb1!sb6!emory!gatech!spaf @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf)

Who says we have to let them come back to complain?
-- 
"The soapbox of Gene Spafford"

CSNet:		Spaf @ GATech		
Internet:	Spaf.GATech @ UDel-Relay
uucp:		...!{sb1,allegra}!gatech!spaf
		...!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!spaf

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #145    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 145

Today's Topics:
				  A & A
	       Re: Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf)
			   Soviet Space Shuttle
			  Shuttle Arrives at KSC
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 1 Jul 83  08:16:39 PDT
Date:  1 Jul 1983 0914-MDT
From: Pendleton@UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: A & A
To: space@MIT-MC

   I would like to recomend Aeronautics & Astronautics the magazine of
the AIAA as an excellent source of information on current and future
air and space projects.

   Last months issue had a brief article on work being done in plasma
jet rocket engines.  It mentioned a 60% efficient 100kw engine that is
under development.  Also mentioned was the fact that the Air Force has
let a contract to develop a 100kw space rated nuclear reactor.

   This months issue has a series of articles describing FSTS ( Future
Space Transportation System ).  A fully reusable two stage space
shuttle.  There are separate articles on power plants, structures,
thermal protection system, and fleet operation.

   The same issue had a blurb about an agreement between NASA and a
private corporation ( I can't remember the name ).  The company has
agreed to develop a high energy upper stage for the shuttle, using its
own funds.  In return NASA has agreed not to compete with the company
in this market.  I have heard rumors from people at Thiokol (sp?) that
the upper stage will be a modified version of the MinuteMan 3rd stage.


          Bob Pendleton
-------

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 1 Jul 83  10:10:58 PDT
Date: 1 July 1983 13:11 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf)
To: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!sb1!sb6!emory!gatech!spaf @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 27 Jun 83 15:37:00-PDT (Mon)
    From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!sb1!sb6!emory!gatech!spaf @ Ucb-Vax
    Who says we have to let them come back to complain?

Come on now. Besides being inhumane, if Proxmire or Stockman or any
other well-known government official were assassinated in space the
whole space program would be cancelled immediately out of
protest/disgust. That's the kind of negative PR we definitely
**don't** need!!

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 1 Jul 83  23:54:06 PDT
Date: 1 Jul 1983 23:41:53-PDT
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@aids-unix>
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Soviet Space Shuttle
Cc: arms-d@mit-mc, poli-sci@rutgers

The following long (1500-word) quotation is taken from "The Soviet Space
Shuttle: the rumors solidify" by James E. Oberg and appeared in Vol. 1, No.
1 (June 83 issue) "Defense Systems Review", pp. 38-40, copyright (C) 1983
Cosgriff-Martin & Cutter Inc., publishers (as this was the first issue, it
was being distributed free by the publisher for promotional purposes.)  All
emphasis appeared in the original.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Two big recent splashes in the Indian Ocean have transformed the
semi-mythical "Soviet Space Shuttle" from a creature of folklore and rumor
into one of hardware and clear photographs.  The splashes, in June 1982 and
again last March, were made by the return to Earth from orbit of one-ton
lifting body payloads with the letters "CCCP" on the side: "Made in the
U.S.S.R."

  The general (but not unanimous) evaluation of these missions is that they
involved a subscale model of a future Soviet manned "space plane".  For the
Soviets, however, they were merely "scientific satellites" in the Cosmos
series, serial numbers 1374 and 1445.

  Analysis of orbital tracking data released by NORAD (via the NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center) showed several puzzling features of these missions.
First, the launch site was the small base at Kapustin Yar, on the lower
Volga River (both launches occurred at night, with the splashdowns soon
after dawn).  Second, the vehicles flew southeast and made one orbit of
Earth, firing retrorockets while passing across the Black Sea an hour and a
half after liftoff.  The reentry occurred over southern India and Sri Lanka,
and the splashdown occurred near the Cocos Islands exactly as planned --
because a substantial recovery fleet was waiting in the target area (along
with shadowing planes and ships from Australia).

  Other facts rapidly became known.  The launch vehicle was a small
IRBM-derived satellite launcher (Thor Delta in performance), so the payload
was surprisingly small -- about one ton.

  The second flight in March coincided with the release of the Defense
Department's latest edition of "The Soviet Military Threat", which included
a special section on Soviet space activities.  In it, the booklet disclosed
that besides the small "space plane" the Soviets were also developing both a
large Space Shuttle (fully equivalent to the American vehicle) and a new
class of expendible launch vehicles similar to the Saturn series built by
the U.S. in the 1960's.

  The two independent Soviet shuttle projects appear to have unique missions
and to be substantially different in design philosophy than the \American
Columbia Challenger/, and sister spaceships.

  The smaller Soviet vehicle (in many ways comparable to the USAF's X-20
"Dyna-Soar" project of the early 1960s) may in its full-size version weigh
about fifteen tons and be launched by a new medium-size expendable booster
now being developed.  The spacecraft could carry a crew of four or five
cosmonauts, including passengers, and may serve as a resupply vehicle for a
large Soviet space station now being designed.  Other missions, including
military reconnaissance and space inspection/interdiction, are certainly
feasible.

  On the other hand, the larger Soviet `shuttle' will probably be carried
into space attached to an expendable first stage with several liquid-fuel
strap-on units as well.  Reportedly, it will not carry reusable cryogenic
engines comparable to the Space Shuttle Main Engines, so several distinctive
design features are possible.  First, the spacecraft itself will be lighter
in relation to its payload weight.  Second, the aft end of the vehicle can
be built with aerodynamic advantages in mind, providing a lift-to-drag ratio
twice that of the \Columbia/ and very similar to that of the \Enterprise/ in
the first drop tests in 1977 with the tail cone.  Thirdly, without the need
for engines at the aft end, the Soviet space engineers may have chosen to
open the tail cone clamshell fashion to deploy the vehicle's payload, thus
saving further on the structural complexity involved in "payload bay doors"
on the top of the American space shuttle.

  This larger Soviet vehicle apparently already exists in at least mockup
form.  It has been photographed both in test stands and atop modified Bison
bombers for point-to-point ferrying flights.  At Ramenskoye Air Base
southeast of Moscow (the Soviet version of Edwards AFB), the vehicle has
been seen and assigned the designator "Ram-R".  Reportedly, its dimensions
are quite similar to those of America's shuttles: a length of 109 feet
(compared to the US's 122 feet), a wingspan of 76 feet (nearly identical),
and a fusilage diameter of 18 feet (slightly wider than the US design).  Its
delta wing design has a leading edge sweep of 46 degrees, again quite
similar to the US vehicle.  These estimates may have been refined further
recently: late this March, sources claimed that a Bison with a Ram-R shuttle
mounted atop it had run off the runway at Ramenskoye and been stuck in the
mud for two days.  This presumably gave US vehicles adequate time for
high-quality photographic activity.

  Flight schedules remain obscure.  Judging from past practice, it could
take four or five years for the scaled up version of the smaller Soviet
shuttle to make its appearance in orbit.  The new booster which presumably
will carry it will, according to the DODs [sic] report, not begin flight
testing until "the 1984-87 time period", which would be consistent with the
development of the manned vehicle itself.  Manned drop tests could of course
occur much sooner.  The larger Soviet shuttle must depend on the development
of the larger space booster systems, and might not be launched in this
decade.

  These schedules are consistent with Soviet public statements about "space
shuttles" in general -- in recent years they have been quite negative.  The
significant expenditures in developing the new "Soyuz-T" (a new manned
spacecraft built in side [sic] an old Soyuz airframe, it is NOT merely a
modified Soyuz) are consistent with getting five to ten years space service
out of it.  Cosmonauts have made exactly those kinds of statements.

  There are dissenters from this general analysis.  One group of observers
has come to believe that the Cosmos-1374 and Cosmos-1445 flights into the
Indian Ocean have nothing to do with the Soviet manned space program at all,
and that interpreting them as a part of the "Soviet space shuttle" may be a
dangerously mistaken form of "mirror imaging".  These analysts point out that
Kapustin Yar has never been associated with testing of man-related hardware.
They point out that a simple reentry test could more easliy have been
accomplished on a suborbital lob downrange from Kapustin Yar to the standard
Karaganda recovery zone or from Tyuratam downrange into the Sea of Okhotsk
-- but the actual tests required the development of a unique orbital control
and de-orbit propulsion system.  The Soviets have only intentionally landed
two earlier man-related vehicles at sea, and that was only because their
lunar return trajectories made in-country landings dynamically impossible
(that was not the case for 1374/1445).  And the Soviets have never before
bothered with "subscale models" -- they have always built full-scale
mockups, flown them, and modified the next vehicles based on the results.

  The alternate explanation, which it is claimed accounts for these nagging
enigmas, is that 1374/1445 represent a new generation of anti-fleet nuclear
weapons delivery system.  The module is not subscale, but is full size --
and large enough to carry a 100-kiloton thermonuclear weapon.  It is
designed to go into a standardized low parking orbit and then descend
anywhere an American carrier task force has been targetted.  The warhead
must be a "maneuvering reentry vehicle" -- a MARV -- and hence needs
substantial cross range to cover the whole surface of Earth between
successive orbits.  Therefore it would look very much like a `space shuttle'
-- so much so that analysts already seeking hard evidence for the legendary
Soviet shuttle would fasten onto this evidence and misinterpret it.

  This minority view, hopefully, is not accurate -- but disturbingly, it
DOES account for more of the features of the 1374/1445 missions than does
the `subscale model of a small Soviet shuttle' theory.

  Meanwhile, the Soviets have been diligently developing the destination
for this presumed family of space shuttles: a permanent space station.  The
Soviets do not need such vehicles for mere economy of launch costs.  Indeed,
the `shuttles' will be launched on expendable boosters and even the vehicles
themselves may not really be "reusable" (which eliminates the headaches of
tiles, since time-tested ablative materials are entirely adequate).  Their
main purpose seems connected with more fully utilizing the USSR's large
permanent space base now being designed.  These different uses are certain
to result in significantly different technological features from the
familiar \Columbia/-class shuttles.  Those features will appear ambiguous
enough for lots of mysteries and misinterpretations in years to come as
Soviet space engineers strive to bring their own shuttle vehicles on line.

		[end quotation]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 2 Jul 83  00:34:38 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 2 Jul 83 0:29-PDT
Date: 29 Jun 83 15:42:02-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle Arrives at KSC
Article-I.D.: alice.2004

The Challenger arrived at KSC today at 1027 EDT.  The five day
processing from landing at EAFB to arriving at KSC was the
fastest ever during the STS program.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #146    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 146

Today's Topics:
			   PM-Ham-Shuttle,300 
			   Soviet Lifting Body
		    Re: Re: Shuttle passengers - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 4 Jul 83  05:16:21 PDT
Date: 04 Jul 83  0516 PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: PM-Ham-Shuttle,300 
To:   space@MIT-MC

a029  0030  04 Jul 83
Astronaut Garriott Gets Permission For Private Transmitter
By NORMAN BLACK
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - ''This is Whiskey-Five-Lima-Foxtrot-Lima, from the
Space Shuttle Columbia.'' With those words, expressing his assigned
call sign, astronaut Owen Garriott is expected to become the first
''ham'' radio operator to operate from space next fall.
    Garriott, a mission specialist on September's scheduled ninth
shuttle flight, received permission from the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration last April to carry an amateur radio transmitter
on board the Columbia.
    NASA said Garriott could use the gear during his off-duty hours
whenever he wished.
    But as in all things bureaucratic, Garriott needed one more
permission slip. Amateur radio operators, like any other user of the
airwaves, must answer to the Federal Communications Commission and the
agency's rules weren't exactly written with the idea of ''hams''
originating calls from space.
    Garriott applied for various waivers of the rules, and the FCC
granted it last week.
    ''The pioneering nature of this venture warrants favorable action on
Dr. Garriott's request,'' responded James C. McKinney, chief of the
FCC's private radio bureau. Granting the waivers ''is in keeping with
our statutory mandate to provide for experimental uses of radio
frequencies.''
    Garriott, a ham radio operator since his youth who now holds an
Advanced Class license, will use a five-watt transmitter on board the
Columbia that will be powerful enough to reach ham receivers on the
ground within line-of-sight of the shuttle.
    Since the shuttle orbits the Earth in about 80 minutes,
conversations will be brief because Garriott's radio will be in
line-of-sight contact with a single point for only a few minutes at a
time. He is expected to transmit in the range of 145.510 megahertz to
145.770 megahertz, and receive in the range of 144.910 megahertz to
145.470 megahertz.
    
ap-ny-07-04 0330EDT
***************

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 4 Jul 83  05:53:19 PDT
Date:     Sun, 3 Jul 83 15:27:35 EDT
From:     J. C. Pistritto <jcp@brl-bmd>
To:       Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc
Subject:  Soviet Lifting Body

About the Soviet subscale space shuttle:

	A picture, (quite good actually), appears in an issue of Aviation
Week about about a month ago of the subscale model being hoisted abort
a Soviet ship in the Indian Ocean after the second mission.  The vehicle
quite clearly seems to have 'tiles' almost identical in size and shape
to Columbia's.  Considerable streaking is visible around the edges of
the tiles, which would be 'gap filler' material ablating off during\
reentry (Columbia experienced this also on the first mission).  Other
than that, the vehicle appears much like an X-20 Dyna Soar lifting body.
(The crash of which I believe is the intro film sequence to the 'Six Million
Dollar Man TV series).

						-JCP-

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jul 83  02:19:06 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 5 Jul 83 2:09-PDT
Date: 1 Jul 83 15:15:55-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!microsof!fluke!witters @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: Shuttle passengers - (nf)
Article-I.D.: vax1.344
In-Reply-To: Article <2329@uiucdcs.UUCP>

Let's dig up the remains of Cambell, Wells, and Verne and send them up.
On second thought, what about Issac Newton?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #147    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 147

Today's Topics:
			       Ham-Shuttle
				  Rovers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 6 Jul 83  12:08:52 PDT
Date: 6 Jul 83 12:07:06 PDT (Wednesday)
From: Murray.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Ham-Shuttle
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Murray.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Is the dopler shift significant?

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 6 Jul 83  22:44:31 PDT
Date: 6 Jul 1983 21:26-PDT
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@aids-unix>
Subject: Rovers
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Cc: AIlist@SRI-AI
Message-Id: <83/07/06 2126.483@aids-unix>

First: Thanks to all who have responded to my initial note about rovers.

Most people seem to have taken what I would regard as the easy (and
commensurately uninteresting) way out by choosing a lunar environment,
precisely because teleoperation is feasible there, if a nuisance.  But
what about systems operating on more distant heavenly bodies or in deep
space?  Even robotic vehicles on Mars would suffer rather severe
performance degradation if they had to rely upon an (approximately)
earth-bound intelligence for control.  (A friend provides the following
simple gedankenexperiment: decide now to start scratching-your-leg-until-
it-stops-itching twenty minutes from now; now wait twenty minutes before
you can start; then, perhaps, wait at least twenty minutes before you can
consider stopping....)

Note that I'm not taking issue with the desirability of teleoperated
lunar vehicles.  (In fact, there's good reason to believe that a
planetary or lunar rover is politically unrealistic if NASA has
anything to say about it, given what I understand to be the prevailing
NASA attitude towards *unmanned* space exploration, but that fact
doesn't motivate my comments here.)  Rather, I'm suggesting we tackle a
problem domain sufficiently rich in AI problems to (a) keep things
interesting and (b) allow us to explore what contribution, if any, we
might be able to make as computer scientists, AI researchers, and
engineers.

Do we know enough to solve, or even identify, the difficult issues in
situation assessment, planning, and resource allocation faced by such a
system?  For example, reinterpreting Professor Minsky's desire that
"anyone with such budgets should aim them at AI education and research
fellowships", let us then assume that these fellowships are provided by
NASA and have a problem domain specified: perhaps, for example, we
might choose a space station orbiting Mars as our testing grounds, with
robot assembly prior to arrival of humans on-site as the problem.  What
problems can we already solve, and where is the research needed?

					asc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #148    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 148

Today's Topics:
	       Myths through history and space exploration
		     Re: Need Telephone Number - (nf)
			Re: Phase III AMSAT - (nf)
			Re: Shuttle History Wanted
		       more shuttle orbiters, cheap
			    taking no chances
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 July 1983 19:10 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Myths through history and space exploration
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

A few minutes ago I tuned in on the middle of a terrific program on
channel 60 (KCSM, San Mateo;PBS/teleclasses) -- I was wondering if
anybody else saw it or knew more about it.

The credits at the end said it was produced by Miami-Dade Community
College, copyright 1978. I didn't recognize any of the actors or other
contributors.

The program when I tuned in was about myths in history: including the
New World myth that America was a re-enactment of the Garden of Eden
except this time it'd come out with a happy ending. It mentionned the
myth of Aryan supremecy and the myth of Communism.

It then moved on to the myths of the space age: (1) Flying saucers are
friendly people watching over us, ready to intervene to save us if we
start to destroy ourselves; (2) Flying saucers are enemy people who
will exterminate us and take over our planet; (3) There's no evidence
for live elsewhere than on Earth, and in fact we may be the only
intelligent life anywhere in the Milky Way galaxy, thus our expansion
through this galaxy will be an important event in the history of the
whole galaxy; (4) Biological organisms faced with extinction sometimes
evolve to survive the crisis, and we now (faced with threats of
nuclear war and other disasters) are starting to adapt to space and
populate space to survive these threats.

I thought it was highly fascinating. Anybody else remember seeing it?
Anybody know when it'll be shown again? (I don't have a TV log.)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 83 17:19:14-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!sjk @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Need Telephone Number - (nf)

The best way to find the current 900 numbers is to dial 900 information:
(900) 555-1212.

scott kramer <sjk@ucbvax, ucbvax!sjk>

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 83 17:19:41-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!larson @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Phase III AMSAT - (nf)

  Yes, but there are some problems.  Hopefully they will be resolved
soon.  See net.ham-radio for details.
	Alan

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 83 11:16:00-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle History Wanted

Can someone fill in the details I am missing on the manned
shuttle missions?  Mail or posting here will be appreciated.

Manned free flight (ALT) tests in OV-101 Enterprise:
           Time     Separation                            Test
  Date     m:ss      Altitude      Crew                   Objectives

08/12/77   5:21      24100 ft     Haise, Fullerton       separation test
09/13/77   5:28      26000 ft     Engle, Truly           flight control
09/23/77   5:34      24700 ft     Haise, Fullerton       test autoland
10/12/77   2:34      22400 ft     Engle, Truly           no tail fairing
10/26/77   2:02      19900 ft     Haise, Fullerton       15000 ft. runway



STS  Launched   Duration  Rev.  OV#  Crew (CDR, PLT, MS, ...)

 1   04/12/81   54:20:52   36   102  John W. Young, Robert L. Crippen
 2   11/12/81   54:13:??   36   102  Joe H. Engle, Richard H. Truly
 3   03/22/82  193:??:??  128?  102  Jack R. Lousma, Charles G. Fullerton
 4   06/27/82  168:??:??  112?  102  Thomas K. Mattingly, Henry W. Hartsfield
 5   11/11/82  122:14:25   81   102  Vance D. Brand, Robert F. Overmyer,
                                     William B. Lenoir, Joseph P. Allen
 6   04/04/83  120:24:32   80   099  Paul J. Weitz, Karol J. Bobko,
    @13:30 EST                       F. Story Musgrave, Donald H. Peterson
 7   06/18/83  146:24:20   98   099  Robert L. Crippen, Frederick H. Hauck,
    @06:33 EST                       John M. Fabian, Sally K. Ride,
                                     Norman E. Thagard

Notes:
STS-1   Landed Rogers Lake bed at Edwards AFB (EAFB).
STS-2   Successful RMS test.  Shortened from 83 rev (124 hr) mission
        because of fuel cell failure.  Landed EAFB again.
STS-3   Landed Northrup strip at White Sands NM one day late due to
        high winds there; EAFB was too wet.
STS-4   Final test flight.  SRBs lost in Atlantic.  First landing on
        concrete runway (#22 EAFB).
STS-5   EVA scrubbed due to EMU failure.  Launched SBS, Canada Telesat
        (Anik-C) satellites.
STS-6   First flight of Challenger.  TDRS-A deployed but IUS failed.
        First U.S. EVA in 9 years (Musgrave & Peterson, 04/07/83).
STS-7   Launched Canada Telesat (Anik) and Indonesian (Palapa) satellites.
        Deployment, formation, and retrieval of SPAS-01.  KSC landing
        cancelled because of fog; landed EAFB #22.


If any of this is incorrect, PLEASE don't hesitate to correct me.

	Roger Noe		...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jul 83  02:33:41 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 8 Jul 83 2:25-PDT
Date: 2 Jul 83 23:18:15-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: more shuttle orbiters, cheap
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3065

In the midst of an otherwise-irrelevant paper in the Journal of the
British Interplanetary Society I ran across something a bit startling.
It was discussing the matter of an expanded Shuttle fleet.  The current
production price of an orbiter is about $1 billion, mostly because it
is essentially a one-shot construction job.  The price would drop quite
dramatically, it seems, if a production line were set up.  The paper
gave the number of $200 million per orbiter.  Now, here's the striking
part:  as few as half a dozen more orbiters could justify setting up
the production line.  In other words, $1 billion right now will buy you
one more orbiter;  $1.2 billion will buy SIX more orbiters!  Now that
is more like a reasonable fleet!

The odds of NASA funding a fifth orbiter right now seem poor, and the
time for a decision is fast approaching.  Startup costs for further
production will rise sharply in the near future as the construction
facilities start to shut down.  STC's bid to privately fund a fifth
orbiter in exchange for orbiter marketing rights is still unresolved,
last I heard.  But if STC puts up $1 billion for one orbiter, maybe
NASA could be convinced to spend $0.2 billion to change "one" to "six".

Does anybody know if the figures are accurate?  The author of the
paper didn't give a reference for them.
-- 
				Henry Spencer
				U of Toronto
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jul 83  02:34:09 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 8 Jul 83 2:24-PDT
Date: 2 Jul 83 23:22:45-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: taking no chances
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3066

A recent issue of Flight International had an interesting photograph.
It was one engine pylon of the 747 Shuttle Carrier, as seen on the
ground at the Paris Air Show.  The interesting part was the two little
cylinders fastened to the pylon, high up under the wing.  These are
not standard 747 equipment.  According to the caption they are infrared
jammers, for confusing heat-seeking missiles!  Seems NASA and the USAF
weren't taking any chances on somebody shooting at the Enterprise
while it was out touring the world.
-- 
				Henry Spencer
				U of Toronto
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Jul-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #151    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 151

Today's Topics:
			    E.T. UFO's - (nf)
			  re shuttling criminals
			  Re: E.T. UFO"s - (nf)
			Galaxy Song in net.movies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 83 3:31:15-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hp-dcd!jack @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: E.T. UFO's - (nf)

The phrase "extra-terrestrial UFO's" is a misnomer.
If we know where they're from, they're not UFO's.

Regarding the statistical sample:
   Our (listen to me, you'd think that I did it) guesses on how
many worlds have life isn't based on statistical sample, it's
based on information about the temperature of stars, etc.


				-Jack Applin IV
				 (ucbvax!decvax!cca!sri-unix!hplabs!hp-dcd!jack)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 1983 18:45:47-EDT
From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX
To: howard.dlos@parc-maxc, rem@mit-mc, space@mit-mc
Subject: re shuttling criminals

   No, I don't think REM owes you an apology; "sick idiot" is one of the milder
terms I would use, and "questionable literate" would be added in view of some
of your self-justifications.

							Now that the
	shuttle has finally started shuttling, the program is in no immediate
	danger, so why do you need to convert the masses.

The shuttle program has been in continual danger from, among others, the
military, which is taking the lion's share of the flights, and assorted
budget-cutters (remember when there was a fifth shuttle planned?)
I should also point out that this would hardly help the image; try looking
up the what happened to Edison (supporting DC) versus Westinghouse
supporting AC) when AC was chosen as New York's method of execution.

				 when the shuttle as always flown
	with less than 50% full capacity.

The last time I looked, the shuttle was rated for seven people; the last
mission had five on board, and several previous have had four.

			The first ones to be executed will not be glorified,
	rather they will become answers to trivia questions

That depends on your point of view; I suppose you've forgotten the name of
Crispus Attucks.

							(we would not want
	to execute a person whose guilt is in doubt anyway)

Bull. (This is of course the first problem with capital punishment; there
is no room for later thoughts.)

I would particularly emphasize the "sick"; what sort of person would use one
of man's greatest achievements (an achievement with a real future, unlike the
closed-ended Apollo missions) as a tool of judicial murder.

REM's arguments have some holes, but far fewer than your idea.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 83 23:45:04-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!wivax!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!csu-cs!bentson @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: E.T. UFO"s - (nf)
In-Reply-To: Article hp-pcd.1262

It's true that a known flying object (not-UFO) isn't
extraterrestrial.  But a UFO is just that, UNKNOWN.
It need not be from anywhere further away than Iowa.

Randy Bentson
csu-cs!bentson

(Sorry Iowa.)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 83 16:03:38-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!microsof!fluke!ssc-vax!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcad!keithl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Galaxy Song in net.movies

In net.movies, I put a transcript of the Galaxy Song (as well as two
sacrilegious ditties) from the Monty Python movie "The Meaning of Life".
Suprisingly accurate, although none of the measurements in the song
are metric (sigh).

-- 
Keith Lofstrom
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #152    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 152

Today's Topics:
			   STS-8 liftoff date?
				sattelites
			   Dyna Soar & $6M man
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 83 9:54:02-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxw!rung @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-8 liftoff date?

The original liftoff for STS-8 was to be
sometime in mid-August before the brake
problem occurred.  does anyone know when the
new date is? I"m going to be in Florida the
last 2 weeks in August and am anxious to see
if my vacation plans fall into the liftoff
date. Thanx!

				Pete Rung
				BTL, Naperville, Ill.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 83 16:16:27-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: sattelites

Does anyone know when the shuttles will start using the communications
sattelites so that they can be in contact with mission control 100%
of the time?


				-Ron (..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie)

------------------------------

Date:     10 Jul 83 21:45-EST (Sun)
From: Charles Weems <weems.umass-cs@UDel-Relay>
Return-Path: <weems%umass-cs.UMASS-CS@UDel-Relay>
Subject:  Dyna Soar & $6M man
To: space@mit-mc
Via:  UMASS-CS; 10 Jul 83 22:34-EDT

It wasn't the Dyna Soar that was shown breaking up in the openning scene
from the $6 million man -- According to the placard at the Smithsonian
Air and Space museum it was the M2-F2 lifting body.  The crash occurred
on May 10, 1967 and was due to a control instability that was later cured
by the addition of a center tailfin to the M2-F3.  Unlike the bionic TV
character, the test pilot actually suffered the loss of one eye.  It goes on
to tell how the M2 program proved that wingless craft could operate at
subsonic, transonic and supersonic speeds, paving the way for the shuttle
design.
                                       chip weems

P.S.  How about giving that test pilot a ride on the shuttle?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Jul-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #153    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 153

Today's Topics:
			      Administrivia
			   Space Burial - (nf)
		American Space Foundation - heard of it ?
		     Shuttle's mild atmospheric entry
				   ufos
				   IRAS
			      Re: sattelites
			 Re: Soviet Space Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 83 21:10:58-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ MIT-MC
From: The Moderator <OTA -at S1-A>
Subject: Administrivia

I inadvertently confused the digesting software, so that it forgot to use
version numbers 149 & 150.  These digests never existed.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 83 8:17:29-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space Burial - (nf)

	I understand that NASA has decided that burial in space is one
of the commercial applications that they prefer not to explore.  I think
this is terribly short-sighted.

	There are more than enough egotists out there would would gladly
pay $5K a piece to have their ashes mixed in with a ceramic goo, to be
dried in aerodynamic molds, carried aloft, and put in a rapidly decaying
orbit which had been carefully computed to effect terminal entry (and a
pretty flash in the night sky) for the benefit of the those attending
outdoor evening memorial ceremonies.

	Possibly, these artificial meteors could be timed to within a
fraction of minute, thus allowing for very high volume funeral services
on a national scale, with very predictable satisfaction of customers.

	A Totally Sick, Pagan Degenerate,
	    Michael Turner
	    ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 83 6:44:49-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!zehntel!varian!bob @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: American Space Foundation - heard of it ?

I recently received a letter from The American Space Foundation imploring
me to become a member and sign a petition to congress asking them to
'reaffirm America's serious commitment to space' etc. The letter was
signed by Ed Gibson who was one of the Skylab III astronauts. Does anybody
know anything about this organisation - what is their history and do they
have any political ambitions ? I totally agree with their petition text
but can a non-citizen petition Congress ? ( Obviously the chances are that
Congress would never know, but what is the technical truth ? )

	Bob Palin
	Varian Instruments
	2700 Mitchell Dr.
	Walnut Creek, 
	Ca. 94598
	(415) 939-2400 x2560
	...!decvax!sytek!zehntel!varian!bob
	...!ucbvax!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!varian!bob
	...!tektronix!zehntel!varian!bob
	...!fortune!varian!bob
	...!amd70!varian!bob

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 11 July 1983 12:27:25 EDT
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: space@mc
Subject: Shuttle's mild atmospheric entry
Message-ID: <1983.7.11.16.22.32.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

Here's an interesting tidbit from "Peterson on spacewalks," an article about
STS-6 in the June 25 Flight International.

	Entry is milder than that of the Apollo capsule, with a 
	maximum of 1.6g "eyeballs down" being experienced.  The
	tameness of entry is emphasized by Musgrave, who was walking
	about and taking photographs while it was happening.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 11 Jul 83 10:08:46-PDT
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: ufos
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

	The phrase "extra-terrestrial UFO's" is a misnomer.
	If we know where they're from, they're not UFO's.
				-Jack Applin IV

Knowing something does not come from the earth hardly qualifies as knowing
where it's from.  The galaxy minus earth is still quite a large set.
David

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 1983 14:10-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Subject: IRAS

IRAS is returning 700 million bits of data per day.  So far, it has
mapped 1/2 of the sky;  after finishing the survey it will repeat to
detect moving and variable sources, and to find spurious signals
(debris, reflected moon light, cosmic ray impacts on the detector).

The big bottleneck right now is the data reduction software, which is
still being debugged.

IRAS is expected to be a superb asteroid detector.  It is expected to
find some 15,000 to 20,000 new asteroids (3,000 are known from ground
observation).  I don't believe their orbits will be known, though.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 1983 2305-PDT
From: Bradley S. Brahms <Brahms@USC-ECLC>
Subject: Re: sattelites
To: space@MIT-MC
cc: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie@UCB-VAX

After much pain and anguish, NASA got the first satellite into its
final orbit.  I believe there are three planned with (i believe)
a forth as a backup.  Once the satellites are operation, the
shuttles will be able to be in contact with earth about 85-90%
of the time.

Added Note:  Because of the problem with the first satellite,
I've heard that there is a possibility that the Space Lab inaugural
flight may be delayed.  Apparently they don't want the Space
Lab out of contact for a long period of time.

                                        -- Brad Brahms
                                           (arpa: Brahms@USC-ECLC)

P.S.    Please correct me on any of the above if I'm wrong.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 83 13:30:04-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!utzoo!watmath!watarts!bernie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle
In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.2751

I also dissent with the "minority opinion" mentioned in the article, if only
because the Aviation Week and Space Technology photos of the sub-scale
Soviet shuttle had windows in it (which suggests that it would be a manned
vehicle in ful-scale form).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Jul-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #154    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 154

Today's Topics:
		   Minority Opionion on Soviet Shuttle
			Re: re shuttling criminals
		    Guess who's coming to dinner....  
			    M2-F2 lifting body
			      Re: satellites
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1983 0931-MDT
From: Pendleton@UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Minority Opionion on Soviet Shuttle
To: space@MIT-MC

    If the Soviets have actually developed a system that can be
launched from within the Soviet Union, go into orbit, deorbit on
command, use aerodynamic maneuvering to impact anywhere in the world
with pinpoint accuracy, and this system has enough payload to deliver
a 100kt bomb, then they would be very tempted to develop it as a
weapon system.

    Why? because the cost of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier task force
is measured in multiples of billions of dollars.  As a rough guess I'd
say that it would cost less than $100 million each to deploy this new
weapon.  Its the castle versus cannon trade off.  This would be a very
clever use of space technology to provide an economical reply to our
new large aircraft carriers.

    As to the test versions having windows; perhaps they want to
photograph the leading edge during reentry or test a vision based
terminal guidance system?

		Bob Pendleton
-------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 83 10:35 CDT
From: Howard.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: re shuttling criminals
In-reply-to: "csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX.ARPA's message of 7 Jul 83 18:45:36 EDT"
To: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX.ARPA
cc: rem@mit-mc.ARPA, space@mit-mc.ARPA
Reply-to: Howard.dlos@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

First of all, I wasn't serious when I first proposed the idea, but
apparently you and REM missed the sarcasm, and even so, I think I proved
that my "idea" was practical, while you have proved yourself to be an
extremely narrow minded individual who runs off at the mouth at anything
that conflicts with your closed minded ideology without listening to
what you are saying.

Maybe the military is taking a huge chunk out of the program, but they
deserve it since it is highly doubtful that there would be a space
shuttle without their support in washington.  If the shuttle had no
possible military applications then it would still be just a brilliant
idea.

Somehow I got the impression that the shuttle could hold much more than
10 people, which would make 50% at least 5 people.  The point is that
there was room to spare.

Crispus Attucks was not an executed criminal, ( if you think he was then
you have a deeply twisted sense of logic ) he happened to be the first
casulty in the Revolutionary War. By the way, off the top of your head,
who was the first person to be executed by the electric chair? the gas
chamber? lethal injection?

You don't believe it's possible to execute anyone without thinking that
you were wrong?  I bet you still uncertain as to who shot Reagan and
Lennon.  And if you are sure, I bet you would let them go if they
promised not to do it again.

"sick"?, I remember when man's greatest achievement was the atomic bomb
and it was used to kill thousands of innocent people as well as scar
generations unborn.

My argument might have some holes in it ( if it didn't there would be
nothing to argue about ), but at least I thought before I typed,
something you haven't seemed to learn yet.

I apologize to any individuals who are upset over this comment being
made public.  However, I believe it is only fair I should respond
publicly to any public critisisms.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 83  1054 PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW@S1-A>
Subject: Guess who's coming to dinner....  
To:   space@MIT-MC

	Date: 5 Jul 83 8:17:29-PDT (Tue)
	From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax

	There are more than enough egotists out there would would gladly
	pay $5K a piece to have their ashes mixed in with a ceramic goo, to be
	dried in aerodynamic molds, carried aloft, and put in a rapidly decaying
	orbit which had been carefully computed to effect terminal entry (and a
	pretty flash in the night sky) for the benefit of the those attending
	outdoor evening memorial ceremonies.

Or for the $10K price, your aerodynamic urn gets covered with Shuttle tile
material, such that you reenter in one piece.  At the location of your choice.
Perfect for the rich uncle that would like to drop in, unnannouced of course,
to visit the relatives at the reading of his will.

				Be nice to Old Uncle Charlie,
					--Tom

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1983 9:38-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: M2-F2 lifting body
Via:  Usc-Cse; 12 Jul 83 11:30:10

I recall seeing that test pilot on an old TV show.  I forget the title
of the show, but it had four celebrities asking three people questions,
trying to decide who were imposters.  The test pilot said he was in the
hospital for a year and a half after the crash.

 

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 83 1:02:16-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: satellites
In-Reply-To: Article <411@mit-eddie.UUCP>

I assume ''the communications satellites'' to which you refer
are the TDRS (tracking and data relay satellite) series.  A
network of three geosynchronous TDRS's is planned.  One is
now in its proper orbit and, after it has been tested, will
be placed in the correct longitude, over Brazil, by STS-8
launch time.  TDRS-2 was to have been launched on STS-8, but
that plan was scrubbed due to the STS-6 IUS failure.  No
word has been given on when it will be launched.  Due to
the fact that only one TDRS will be operative by STS-9,
the Spacelab flight, Spacelab will not be able to accomplish
all of its goals.  This is because the lab itself has little
data storage capacity, and NASA had planned to have it in
constant communication with the ground (two TDRS's would have
sufficed)  With only TDRS-1 in place, the shuttle will be
in contact via satellite only 20% of the time.  If TDRS-1
for some reason doesn't work, Spacelab on STS-9 will be
scrubbed.  Obviously, with all the doubt over IUS and the
further doubt over when TDRS-2 will be launched, there is
no indication whatsoever as to when TDRS-3 will go up.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Jul-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #155    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 155

Today's Topics:
			      Space burials
			    M2-F2 lifting body
			       criminals...
			  OMNI get-away special
			  Myths of the Space Age
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 83 16:43:23-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!sb1!sb6!emory!gatech!hope @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space burials

I think it's a great idea, especially for those people (myself?) who would
like to be cremated instead of buried.  [Actually, it would *complement*
cremation.  

                Another sick, degenerate pagan,

                Theodore (Ted the Hopeless) Hope

                	CSNet  hope@gatech
			ARPA   hope.gatech@UDEL-RELAY
			UUCP   gatech!hope
       			       ...!allegra!gatech!hope
       			       ...!decvax!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!hope

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 13 July 1983 10:02:13 EDT
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: space@mc
Subject: M2-F2 lifting body
Message-ID: <1983.7.13.13.59.1.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

The prime pilot of the M2-F2 was Milton Thompson.  He wrote an article in
the popular press (Popular Science?) called "I Fly Without Wings."  This may
have been boiled down from a book he wrote.  Is he the pilot who crashed?

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 1983 9:50-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: criminals...
Via:  Usc-Cse; 13 Jul 83 10:31:53

Let's drop this inane discussion about executing criminals with the
space shuttle before my bogometer explodes (even poli-sci never did
that...).

 

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 1983 9:54-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: OMNI get-away special
Via:  Usc-Cse; 13 Jul 83 10:32:20

OMNI magazine recently had a contest in which contestants were asked to
submit plans for experiments to be orbited in a "get-away special",
payed for by the magazine.  The winner was an experiment to form foamed
metal beams in zero-g.

The experiment will involve heating metal hydrides to form a molten
metal/hydrogen gas mizture.  This mixture will then be extruded through
an I shaped opening.  The foamed metal should have a much higher
strength-to-mass ratio than solid metal.

Two hydrides will be used: titanium and calcium.  Calcium is ubiquitous
on Earth, but it (and all known alloys) quickly corrode in air.
Calcium (and calcium alloys) may be very useful in the vacuum of space,
though, because they are very light.

 

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 1983 12:13-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: rem@mit-mc
Subject: Myths of the Space Age
Via:  Usc-Cse; 13 Jul 83 12:52:13

Myth (3), that mankind is the only intelligent race in the galaxy,
could very well be true.  We certainly have more evidence for it than
for the orthodox theory (millions of ancient races).

Anyone who wants to argue: please send messages to me, not to this
list.  The topic has been discussed here before.

 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #156    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 156

Today's Topics:
		   Minority Opionion on Soviet Shuttle
			     Space structures
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 July 1983 09:49 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Minority Opionion on Soviet Shuttle
To: Pendleton @ UTAH-20
cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC, SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 12 Jul 1983 0931-MDT
    From: Pendleton@UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton)
        As to the test versions having windows; perhaps they want to
    photograph the leading edge during reentry or test a vision based
    terminal guidance system?
Or perhaps they just want to fool us into thinking their new
maneuverable weapon is just a small test-version of a manned shuttle.
Any way we can find out for sure?

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 1983 10:25:51-PDT
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@aids-unix>
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Space structures

  In the 29.June.1983 issue of Commerce Business Daily (the periodical
issued by the Department of Commerce which contains the Government's
Requests for Proposal announcements, contract award announcements, and
the like), there was an RFP announced by Wright-Pstterson AFB for a
study entitled "Dynamics Instrumentation Requirements for Structures
R&D".  One specific requirement of the contract would be to "define
structural dynamics instrumentation requirements for ground-based R&D
testing, for flight testing on aerospace vehicles and for in-space
testing of large space structures".

  By reading between the lines, one might infer that the Government is
looking to fund research on the design of "large space structures",
which, of course, could include manned space stations.  Note that the
phrasing specifically requires "in-space testing" of space structures.

  Interesting.
						asc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #157    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 157

Today's Topics:
				STAR PARTy
			      Re: sattelites
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 83 15:45:57-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!mjs @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STAR PARTy

**** STAR PARTY *****

DATE:		Saturday JULY 16, 1983

Time: 		1:00 till whenever

Location: 	Voohrees State Park (North of High Bridge N.J.)
		Route 513 at the Paul Robinson Observatory

During the day will be displays of astro type equipment.
Also a tour of the facilities,films,slide program,Sunspot
viewing, and after dark a "Star Party". Wow!





	 	Mark Schiff
		WH 2C-127
		201-386-7184
		BTL Whippany N.J.
		...!harpo!floyd!mjs


		

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 83 14:35:10-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: sattelites
In-Reply-To: Article <3015@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Once all three TDRS satellites are up and working, the shuttle will
be able to sustain ground-space communications 100% of the time, NOT
80-90%.

As for Spacelab, as long as TDRS-1 is found to be functional, Spacelab
will go up in September as planned, but it will only be in contact
with the ground 20% of the time, so some data will be lost.  At least,
this is what NASA says now.  If TDRS-1 does not work, STS-9 will not
carry Spacelab.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Jul-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #158    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 158

Today's Topics:
			Re:  SPACE Digest V3 #154
				  Stuff
			Colonies in Space and NASA
			  TDRS Shuttle Coverage
			       ant farm ??
		   Shuttle's Night Landing Status (FYI)
			    US space station?
			      Re: sattelites
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 17 Jul 83 13:19:43 EDT
From:     J. C. Pistritto <jcp@brl-bmd>
To:       Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc
Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V3 #154

Re TDRS satellites:

	On reading the most recent Aviation Week, my opinion was that
NASA has already definitely scrubbed launch of the TDRS-2 on STS-8,
(the payload flight test article has been substituted as a payload),
and the the STS-11 launch, (March '84) of TDRS-3 is in doubt.  All oth
of this stems from a lack of certification of the Boeing-IUS booster
that put TDRS-1 in the wrong orbit.  A current line of investigation
by NASA is the substitution of a McDonald Douglas Delta second stage
with a PAM (Payload Assist Module, what lanched the two comsats on the
last mission) as a terminal circularization booster.  Since this would
involve inserting a FUELED liquid fuel booster into the payload bay,
(and keeping it their for mutiple days), there are significant flight
safety considerations here.  Douglas says that this configuration
could possibly be ready in time for STS-11 or perhaps a slightly
delayed launch.  At this time there are no plans to delay the STS-9
Spacelab launch unless TDRS-1 fails in some way.

						-JCP-

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 83 18:18:21-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Stuff

I'm sorry that my other article got posted twice, I don't really
know how that happened. Thank you to all of the people that replyed.

Another question:

	Since the next launch will be a night launch, will the astronauts
be eating a steak before liftoff as opposed to the traditional eggs and
toast at 4 in the morning? I realize this is a semi-irrelivent question,
but whenever there is a launch a group of friends and me wake up at four
in the morning and eat the same stuff as the astronauts, just for fun.

			I know, I'm weird..


				-Ronnie
				(...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie)
				            or
				(...decvax!genrad!wjh12!a:schnell, until Aug 21)
					    or
				RONNIE@mit-mc.arpa

								

------------------------------

Date: 17 July 1983 18:51 EDT
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-ML>
Subject: Colonies in Space and NASA
To: space-enthusiasts @ MIT-MC

It's my impression that NASA has not funded or otherwise involved
itself with pursuit the colonization of space since 1977, the date of
the last space manufacturing and industrialization conference with G.
K. O'Neill.  Certainly, there hasn't been any mention of colonies from
NASA in connection with the shuttle. Does anyone have any information
counter to my impression?

If not, why is NASA avoiding the topic? Granted that the colonization
of space is a difficult topic for some to deal with, but wouldn't it
make more sense for NASA to try educate people and politicians that
this is a great idea? For that matter, why is NASA so timid in the
political arena?

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 1983 1743-PDT
From: Bradley S. Brahms <Brahms@USC-ECLC>
Subject: TDRS Shuttle Coverage
To: space@MIT-MC

In a recent message it was stated that with three working TDRS
satellites the shuttle would be in contact with earth 100% of
the time.  Yet with only TDRS-1 working the shuttle would be
in contact only 20% of the time.

Question: Why only 20% and not more?

Something seems wrong with this statement.  The only way the shuttle
could be in contact with earth 100% of the time with only three
satellites would be if each covered 33.33% of the orbital paths.
If you include the current ground base tracking system, of course
some of it would overlap TDRS-1, a number around 38% or so
comes up.

Would someone please explain to me this delima(sp?)?  Thank You.

                                        -- Brad Brahms
                                           (Arpa: Brahms@Usc-Eclc)
-------

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 83 13:28:10-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!dsd!r2d2 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: ant farm ??

	Greatings netlanders
		Does anyone know what ever happened to the space shuttle
ant farm ??? Rumor has it that all of the ants died, but when & why ??? 
If anyone has any info ... please post same , or mail to me { r2d2 }
TNX ... 73 		BOB Runyon
Ampex,DeadWood City,Ca U.S.A. planet Earth

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 83  1916 PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
To:   space@MIT-MC

a220  1159  17 Jul 83
AM-Space Station, Bjt,750
Adviser Reverses Course on Manned Space Station
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - President Reagan's science adviser has reversed
course and asked the nation's space agency to prepare a ''grand
vision'' for the future that might include not only a U.S. space
station but eventually manned lunar bases and astronaut trips to Mars.
    The adviser, George Keyworth, had been using his considerable
influence to oppose development of a space station.
    This week, a NASA task force is assembling several hundred industry,
government, foreign and military planners to gather final ideas
before NASA presents its case to the president in the fall.
    An indication of whether there really is a White House change of
heart will come in September when the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration submits its fiscal 1985 fiscal budget. It will contain
the first major funding request for a station, an estimated $60
million to $120 million.
    Congressional support has been strong, with both houses forcing
money on NASA, which has been restrained by the Office of Management
and Budget. When the agency recently asked for $6 million more for
station design studies, the House voted to add $10 million and the
Senate $5 million.
    Rep. Don Fuqua, D-Fla., chairman of the House Committee on Science
and Technology, says, ''We need a firm presidential commitment to the
space station goal,'' and the next step is Reagan's.
    Encouragement came in a little-publicized speech by Keyworth two
weeks ago to a technical group in Seattle. After two years in which he
strongly opposed a station as an ''unfortunate step backwards,''
Keyworth said:
    ''Some people have jumped to the conclusion that I have a bias
against a space station because I insist on a valid mission before we
make any commitment to it. That's not true. But I think it's time for
us to take a broader look - with more vision, much more vision - at
where we expect the American manned space program to go over the next
quarter century.''
    He said the American people should be informed of the ''grand
vision'' - whether it is an orbital transfer vehicle to high
geostationary orbits, a manned lunar station, or even manned
exploration of Mars.
    In a follow-up interview with Science magazine, Keyworth said: ''I
think the country should take a major thrust in space very seriously.
We've shown that the space shuttle works and is reliable. We have the
technology to build a space station. It is only an intermediate step
in a more ambitious long-range goal of exploring the solar system.''
    Keyworth termed President Kennedy's call for the Apollo
man-on-the-moon program ''a brilliant stroke,'' at a time when U.S.
technical superiority was being challenged by early Soviet space
spectaculars.
    The Soviets have set a goal of 1985 for a permanent manned orbiting
laboratory. Given a go-ahead in fiscal 1985, NASA estimates it can
put up an initial space station by 1991 at a total cost of $6 billion
to $8 billion.
    NASA officials were surprised at being asked to be more forthright
about their visions. Budget austerity has scuttled many of their
projects since the Apollo moon landings, and they have hardly been
inclined to push for lunar bases and trips to Mars.
    Asked about the shift in Keyworth's thinking, Robert F. Freitag,
deputy director of NASA's space station task force, said: ''Support
for a station comes about with understanding - when we sit down with
people, explain it to them and give them time to think about it. Dr.
Keyworth is a good example of that ... He's beginning to see some
virtue he didn't see a year ago.''
    A consensus of the task force's 60 members favors a station that
would begin as two small low-orbit platforms.
    One would be operated initially by four to six people and carry a
variety of instruments and servicing capabilities. It would fly in
formation with a platform carrying research and processing devices
that need a human presence for support.
    The NASA task force has identified 48 space science and applications
missions, 31 commercial missions and 30 technology developments that
would be enabled or substantially enhanced by a U.S. station
capability.
    Many potential users, U.S. and foreign, will be represented at the
three-day Space Station Symposium which starts here Monday.
    ''The task force has been working its tail off for 14 months and we
feel it is time to let people know where we stand,'' Freitag said.
''We will state our policy and seek their ideas.''
    
ap-ny-07-17 1502EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 83  1928 PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
To:   space@MIT-MC

a789  2214  16 Jul 83
BC-APN--Extraterrestrial Life, Adv July 31-2 takes,500-980
$adv 31
AGENCIES AND RADIO OUT
For release Sun., July 31
From AP Newsfeatures
APN PRINT SUBSCRIBERS HAVE BEEN MAILED ONE ILLUSTRATION
    EDITOR'S NOTE - Is there a real E.T. out there? If there is, Frank
Drake will find it. The Cornell astronomer is known as the father of
SETI - the search for extraterrestrial life.
By MEL REISNER
Associated Press Writer
    ITHACA, N.Y. (AP) - After a multimillion-channel system of radio
telescopes begins to monitor interstellar signals around the end of
the decade, astronomer Frank Drake figures on another 10 years or so
before  ankind makes contact with life in space.
    That's not to say that he believes human life as we know it will be
seen on other planets by 2001.
    ''It is unlikely that the end product of a long evolution would be a
duplication of us,'' he says. ''We just know that it will be
intelligent enough to communicate. You get the sense that there's a
lot of life out there. It will be fascinating when we learn about
it.''
    Drake, 52, is known as the father of the search for extraterrestrial
life (SETI) because of his interest and work on the subject for
nearly three decades. He helped organize the first SETI conference in
1961.
    Twice, as a young researcher, Drake was disappointed when he found
that what appeared to be signals emanating in space turned out to be
sounds apparently from a passing airplane or truck.
    Undaunted, he developed an equation to calculate the number of
possible communication-capable civilizations in space. The 22-year-old
equation, which Drake wrote while preparing the agenda for the first
SETI conference, is widely known, especially since its use in James
Michener's novel ''Space.''
    SETI is just one of the pursuits of Drake, who teams with Carl Sagan
of television's ''Cosmos'' to give Cornell perhaps the best-known
astronomy department in the nation. Drake is believed to be the first
to send a coded radio message to the stars. He also discovered
Jupiter's radiation belts, worked on the Mariner series of Mars
explorations and has been studying the measured, steady emissions of
energy - pulsars - from neutron stars.
    The radio telescope, first set up in the 1950s, is the instrument
that gave scientists visions of getting in touch with
extraterrestrials. Cornell was the right place at the right time for
Drake after it completed the world's largest radio telescope at
Arecibo, Puerto Rico, in 1963.
    Featuring the trademark aluminum dish mounted upside-down to
intercept radio waves, the 1,000-foot-diameter Arecibo instrument is
capable of picking up, filtering and delivering to a computer signals
from incredible distances. Renovations will make it 2,000 times as
sensitive as before.
    The development is what makes Drake confident of contacting life in
space before the turn of the century.
    Three decades ago, he says, the first radio listened for waves on
one channel; next year, the Planetary Society-Harvard project will
begin receiving on 128,000 channels at once.
    MORE
    
ap-ny-07-17 0116EDT
***************

!a790  2224  16 Jul 83
BC-APN--Extraterrestrial Life, Adv 31-1st add,550
$adv 31
AGENCIES AND RADIO OUT
For release Sun., July 31
ITHACA, N.Y.: at once.
    According to Drake, that should vastly increase the chances of
contact, but the tool he thinks will make the breakthrough is a
cluster of telescopes midway through a 10-year National Aeronautics
and Space Administration program which will have eight million
channels.
    ''It takes a system that powerful to give us a chance of succeeding
by the end of the century,'' he says. ''We have to have a device that
tests many, many possibilities at once. You're getting data from
eight million channels a second. By the end of the next five years,
we'll have the computer techniques to deal with the enormous data flow
from a system of that size.''
    In years to come, Drake would like to see the whole concept lifted
from the earth to an orbiting radio telescope which would beam its
information back to earth-based computers. The setup would narrow the
possibility of false alarms like the kind he experienced in 1958
while a graduate student at Harvard.
    Drake recalls picking up ''a great big signal in a narrow frequency
channel'' and believing that he was monitoring a message from space.
However, the signal which appeared to be coming from the Pleiades
star cluster persisted even when the telescope was moved - an
indication that it came from an earthly source.
    Two years later, Drake had to rule out another potential contact
because it, too, was multidirectional.
    ''No one has ever seen a signal which strong evidence showed was
extraterrestrial. There are some in the files (on tape) which couldn't
be tested,'' Drake acknowledges.
    No one ever will receive such a signal, says physicist Frank J.
Tipler of Tulane University.
    Tipler, a leading critic of SETI, argues that radio telescopy is
speculative and lacks the scientifically mandatory possibility that it
could be proven false. Its proponents have never said what test
results would satisfy them that other life does not exist, he says.
    Tipler wrote in Discover magazine, ''I contend that any discussion
of extraterrestrial intelligence contains tacit speculations about
civilizations that have possessed radio technology for thousands or
millions of years. Radio searchers presume that civilizations have
been deliberately beaming signals at us for this length of time.''
    Drake says Tipler's arguments can be countered, but that such doubts
in a field where major discoveries are still theoretical hurt SETI
campaigners seeking funds to back their explorations.
    The orbiting radio telescope he envisions would cost $20 billion,
putting it out of reach of private foundations without a massive
infusion of government help. This year, the government dedicated $200
million of the NASA budget to SETI.
    Actual contact with extraterrestrials would multiply the amount of
money for more research, Drake acknowledges.
    Drake is not put off by the fact that he would not be around to make
friends with communicants from space. Radio waves travel at the speed
of light - 186,000 miles per second - which means that a transmission
from the nearest star would have to travel more than four years to
reach earth.
    Pointing out that television waves travel at the same speed, he
says, ''If you can intercept their TV, you can learn what you want to
know without asking questions.''
    END ADV
    
ap-ny-07-17 0127EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 83  1928 PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
To:   space@MIT-MC

a067  0608  12 Jul 83
PM-Space Ants,420
Student Says Ants Probably Survived Space Trip
By ROBERT WADE
Associated Press Writer
    CAMDEN, N.J. (AP) - Scientists and a group of enterprising students
are still trying to find out what killed an ant colony that blasted
into orbit aboard the space shuttle Challenger. But one student says
he thinks he has the answer.
    Anthony Trusty, 19, who helped design the experiment while attending
Camden High School, said Monday a preliminary look at the colony
showed the ants probably died when their living quarters dehydrated in
the California desert after landing.
    A post-landing inspection showed the moss and dirt inside the
L-shaped habitat had dried out. But videotapes made just after
Challenger rocketed into space June 18 showed conditions inside the
colony were acceptable, said Trusty, now a computer science major at
Rutgers University.
    Trusty was the first of the present and former students and teachers
from Camden and Woodrow Wilson high schools to say publicly that the
more than 100 carpenter ants and their queen, Nora, survived orbit.
    Others involved in the project said detailed findings on whether the
insects died while awaiting takeoff, in space, during re-entry or
after touchdown won't be available until at least mid-August.
    ''The two schools are doing their studies and any conjectures as to
the results of the whys, wheres and how is premature until these
studies are completed,'' said a spokesman for RCA Corp., which
sponsored the project.
    Although the colony's death was a disappointment, teachers say the
program accomplished its goal of getting students from the rival
inner-city schools involved in sciences, mathematics, computer
programming and engineering. The 5 1/2-year-old project has won wide
praise and the notice of President Reagan.
    Dr. Thomas Chavis, an RCA scientist who became involved in the
program in 1978 and continued to advise the students despite his
retirement two years ago, said the data from the experiment would help
researchers determine how weightlessness affects species in a
community settings.
    ''Does it disintergrate their ability to get along? Do they continue
to work as a group or split up as individuals over long periods of
weightlessness?'' said Chavis.
    He said scientists would find the data useful in efforts to colonize
space for humans.
    Autopsies, in which the students will analyze the ants' remains, are
under way to determine how long the insects survived after being
sealed into a 30-gallon container filled with monitoring equipment in
Florida in late April and placed aboard Challenger.
    
ap-ny-07-12 0907EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 17-Jul-83 20:34 PDT
From: WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2
Subject: Shuttle's Night Landing Status (FYI)
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Cc: SPACE@MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-2T3NI>

As of this moment Dryden is NOT allowing the public to view the landing.  Yes, I
know it is at night and "what can you see?"  I have called my congressman and 
told him I wanted to go, he said he would get back to me.  I even promised not 
to run on the runway.  Dryden is concerned about security on the runway at 
night.  You might also voice your opinion to you congressman/woman if you are 
interested.  

--William Daul   TYMSHARE INC.  Cupertino, CA.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 83  2239 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: US space station?
To:   space@MIT-MC

a220  1159  17 Jul 83
AM-Space Station, Bjt,750
Adviser Reverses Course on Manned Space Station
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - President Reagan's science adviser has reversed
course and asked the nation's space agency to prepare a ''grand
vision'' for the future that might include not only a U.S. space
station but eventually manned lunar bases and astronaut trips to Mars.
    The adviser, George Keyworth, had been using his considerable
influence to oppose development of a space station.
    This week, a NASA task force is assembling several hundred industry,
government, foreign and military planners to gather final ideas
before NASA presents its case to the president in the fall.
    An indication of whether there really is a White House change of
heart will come in September when the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration submits its fiscal 1985 fiscal budget. It will contain
the first major funding request for a station, an estimated $60
million to $120 million.
    Congressional support has been strong, with both houses forcing
money on NASA, which has been restrained by the Office of Management
and Budget. When the agency recently asked for $6 million more for
station design studies, the House voted to add $10 million and the
Senate $5 million.
    Rep. Don Fuqua, D-Fla., chairman of the House Committee on Science
and Technology, says, ''We need a firm presidential commitment to the
space station goal,'' and the next step is Reagan's.
    Encouragement came in a little-publicized speech by Keyworth two
weeks ago to a technical group in Seattle. After two years in which he
strongly opposed a station as an ''unfortunate step backwards,''
Keyworth said:
    ''Some people have jumped to the conclusion that I have a bias
against a space station because I insist on a valid mission before we
make any commitment to it. That's not true. But I think it's time for
us to take a broader look - with more vision, much more vision - at
where we expect the American manned space program to go over the next
quarter century.''
    He said the American people should be informed of the ''grand
vision'' - whether it is an orbital transfer vehicle to high
geostationary orbits, a manned lunar station, or even manned
exploration of Mars.
    In a follow-up interview with Science magazine, Keyworth said: ''I
think the country should take a major thrust in space very seriously.
We've shown that the space shuttle works and is reliable. We have the
technology to build a space station. It is only an intermediate step
in a more ambitious long-range goal of exploring the solar system.''
    Keyworth termed President Kennedy's call for the Apollo
man-on-the-moon program ''a brilliant stroke,'' at a time when U.S.
technical superiority was being challenged by early Soviet space
spectaculars.
    The Soviets have set a goal of 1985 for a permanent manned orbiting
laboratory. Given a go-ahead in fiscal 1985, NASA estimates it can
put up an initial space station by 1991 at a total cost of $6 billion
to $8 billion.
    NASA officials were surprised at being asked to be more forthright
about their visions. Budget austerity has scuttled many of their
projects since the Apollo moon landings, and they have hardly been
inclined to push for lunar bases and trips to Mars.
    Asked about the shift in Keyworth's thinking, Robert F. Freitag,
deputy director of NASA's space station task force, said: ''Support
for a station comes about with understanding - when we sit down with
people, explain it to them and give them time to think about it. Dr.
Keyworth is a good example of that ... He's beginning to see some
virtue he didn't see a year ago.''
    A consensus of the task force's 60 members favors a station that
would begin as two small low-orbit platforms.
    One would be operated initially by four to six people and carry a
variety of instruments and servicing capabilities. It would fly in
formation with a platform carrying research and processing devices
that need a human presence for support.
    The NASA task force has identified 48 space science and applications
missions, 31 commercial missions and 30 technology developments that
would be enabled or substantially enhanced by a U.S. station
capability.
    Many potential users, U.S. and foreign, will be represented at the
three-day Space Station Symposium which starts here Monday.
    ''The task force has been working its tail off for 14 months and we
feel it is time to let people know where we stand,'' Freitag said.
''We will state our policy and seek their ideas.''
    
ap-ny-07-17 1502EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 18 July 1983 01:45 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: sattelites
To: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Since the link from TDRS-1 to the nearest ground station is
line-of-sight 100% of the time (after all, TDRS-1 is supposed to be
geoSTATIONARY), the link from the ground station to Houston is 100% of
the time via various conventional means, and the link from the orbiter
to TDRS-1 is line-of-sight 50% of the time, I don't see why the
overall duty time is only 20% if TDRS-1 is working.

Perhaps somebody else can explain the calculation for me?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #159    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 159

Today's Topics:
		      Talk of a Space Sortie Vehicle
			   Re:  Space station?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 1983 11:00-PDT
From: taw at S1-C
Subject: Talk of a Space Sortie Vehicle
To: space@mc
Message-Id: <83/07/18 1100.416@S1-C>

A friend just sent me this excerpt from a McDonnell/Douglas internal
newspaper for supervisors:

	USAF Exploring Transatmospheric Vehicle
	
	The USAF's Aeronautical Systems Division is hoping to have a
	transatmospheric vehicle (TAV) - capable of lifting off and
	maneuvering in space like a convential aircraft - operational
	by the late 1990's. Different missions are being considered
	for the TAV, which will not need rockets (like the Shuttle)
	to get into space. MCAIR ( McDonnell Aircraft Co. ) and
	MDAC ( McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co. ) are exploring
	the concept as a team.
	
	

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 83 17:21:30-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!chris @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re:  Space station?

<begin cynical mode>

Hah!  The *real* reason they've decided to push for space stations
is because they're afraid the Soviets will beat us to it!

<end cynical mode>

However, it's not too bad of a means to a good end.

				- Chris
-- 
In-Real-Life:	Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci
UUCP:		{seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:		chris@umcp-cs
ARPA:		chris.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Jul-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #160    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 160

Today's Topics:
	Talk of a Space Sortie Vehicle - TransAtmospheric Vehicle
			 Fender benders in space!
			   shuttle/tdrs status
			   Re:  Space station?
				Re: Stuff
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 July 1983 07:41 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Talk of a Space Sortie Vehicle - TransAtmospheric Vehicle
To: taw @ S1-C
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

If the TAV doesn't have any rockets or pressurized-gas jets, and just
undives up into space and drifts back to atmosphere, it'll be rolling
uncontrolably while in space, making it impossible to perform many
useful tasks while in space. Also, when it returns it may burn up if
it's spinning upon atmosphereic entry. Will it perhaps have some
attitude-control rockets or jets to alleviate these problems?

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 83 09:48:39 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Halbert.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Fender benders in space!
To: space@mit-mc.ARPA

From a message from Phil Karn sent to the Ham-Radio list, about the new
amateur radio satellite, OSCAR-10 (it's doing OK now):
-----
...

Telemetry from the launcher showed that all events up to and INCLUDING
separation of OSCAR-10 from the third stage of the Ariane were perfectly
nominal.  This explains why the "event frame" stored away by the
Oscar-10 computer 1 second after separation showed proper sun angles, etc.

At separation time, two pyrotechnic bolt cutters fired to release our
spacecraft, and three separation springs mounted on the attach fitting
propelled us out from the lower SYLDA half-shell and away from the top
of the Ariane at about .5 meter/second.

At 53 seconds after separation and again about 1 second later, the
accelerometers on the launcher registered "bumps".  This was the third
stage slamming back into our payload.  It turns out that the onboard
sequencer had been programmed to vent extra liquid oxygen, probably
through the engine bell, and the resulting impulse slowly accelerated
the stage to the point where it "caught up" with us.  The impact
velocity was estimated to be 1.5 meters/sec.  If the stage had been
reoriented to point in a different direction before venting, the
collision would have been avoided.

...
----------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 83  0057 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: shuttle/tdrs status
To:   space@MIT-MC

a019  2325  19 Jul 83
PM-Space Shuttle,480
Next Two Shuttle Flights Might Be Postponed
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The next two space shuttle flights may have to be
delayed because of new problems in checking out a trouble-plagued
communications satellite, the head of the shuttle program says.
    ''We're looking carefully at the whole thing,'' Lt. Gen. James A.
Abrahamson said Tuesday. ''We will not make a decision for a while. It
may well be that we can turn this whole thing around and everything
will be fine.''
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has been working
toward an Aug. 20 launch date for the eighth shuttle flight and Sept.
30 for No. 9, which will carry the European-built Spacelab, a $1
billion research facility.
    Abrahamson said the eighth mission, packing a communications
satellite for India, might be put off a few days until the Tracking
and Data Relay Satellite, called TDRS, is ready for communications
tests by the astronauts on that flight.
    ''With the exception of TDRS, the Aug. 20 launch date is looking
good,'' Abrahamson said.
    TDRS is essential for high-speed data transmission from Spacelab,
and will require additional checkouts before it can support that
mission. NASA has only a one-week period starting Sept. 30 to launch
the lab for maximum effect. If the satellite is not ready in time, the
flight would have to slip until the next available launch
opportunity, which starts Oct. 26, Abrahamson said.
    The 10th flight, a secret Defense Department mission which also
depends on TDRS, earlier was delayed indefinitely because of the
satellite's troubles.
    The troubles started when TDRS was launched from the shuttle
Challenger on April 4, and an attached rocket engine misfired, kicking
it into a too-low orbit. Using the payload's small jets, engineers
finally elevated it to a proper orbit 22,300 miles up on June 29 and
began checkouts of the complicated system.
    The latest problems have not been in space, but at the TDRS ground
station at White Sands, N.M., which is billed as one of the most
sophisticated satellite tracking facilities in the world.
    Engineers recently found their computers were failing to command the
huge satellite to lock its antennas onto White Sands. That problem,
in computer programs, was corrected Friday.
    On Monday, there was an interruption in the electrical power to the
White Sands station, followed by a failure in the backup generator
system.
    White Sands has three 625 kilowatt backup generators and needs two
to operate the facility when commercial power fails. When the outage
occurred, one of the generators was down for servicing and a second
failed.
    Later in the day there was a second interruption in commercial power
and, with only one generator working, no work could be done with the
satellite. That delayed the already tight checkout by a day and a
half.
    
ap-ny-07-20 0227EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 83 5:32:30-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re:  Space station?
In-Reply-To: Article umcp-cs.940

	The real reason for the sudden administration interest is that
Reagan is starting to think about how he wants his term in office remembered.
What better way than an aggressive (hopefully non-militarily) space program?

						Eric Bergan
						...!aplvax!eric

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 83 15:52:20-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!clyde!crc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Stuff
In-Reply-To: Article <448@mit-eddie.UUCP>

The tradition IS steak! Quick! throw up all those old meals...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #161    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 161

Today's Topics:
				   SETI
		      MAYBE WE NEED A NEW DIRECTION
		       Re: Communications Sattelite
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 1983 14:05:34-EDT
From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: SETI

   Does anyone know what Tipler's problem is? I read the series of articles
(complete with his rebuttals) in a recent issue of DISCOVER and considered his
arguments mostly ridiculous. The quote about SETI lacking "the scientifically
mandatory possibility that it could be proven false" strikes me as a a notion
that simply isn't applicable on this scale; he sounds like somebody who's
already made up his mind that SETI won't work, where most of the proponents
are at least willing to rigorously examine each possible signal.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 1983 1433-PDT
Subject:  MAYBE WE NEED A NEW DIRECTION
From: TOM MCGUINNESS <TMCGUINNESS@USC-ISIE>
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
POSTAL-ADDRESS: TOM MCGUINNESS,SMC 2147,, NPS, MONTEREY,CA 93940
Phone: (Home) 408-899-1312 (NPS office) 408-646-2174/5 AV 878-2174/5

   Has anyone ever really considered just how expensive space exploration
really is?  I know that we could run three programs for the amount of 
money that we spend on cancer sticks,cosmetics or video games, but when you
look at Government spending (non defense and non "human services",I 
mean the 11% that's left to run everything except DOD and HEW), NASA soaks up 
alot of that money.  What have we got for that money?  NASA says that it hopes
that it will have a permanent 4-6 person space station in orbit by 1991, 30 years after Alan Shepard first took his sub-orbital flight.  That time table hardly
shows a committed interest in a human presence in the solar system.  It seems
to me that our space program has evolved into a program for developing big
military or big science projects rather than viewing space as a "place"
as most of us view it.
     I'm not against the expenditures of funds for military space programs,
or for  things like Space Telescope or IRAS but these projects all represent
a sort of Big Think that will keep space as an area where you place sensors or
weapons rather than an area for resource exploitation or human development.
   Perhaps we need a program, non governmental to see what the cheapest
systems that could be developed; ie what is the cheapest man carrying 
vehicle that we could develop,or what is the least expensive space suit that
can be developed.  Of course the cost of this would be systems that may be
considerably riskier to fly and use.  Anybody know the probability of
catastrophic failure that the Shuttle operates under when it flies?
Try this thought experiment on yourself or someone who claims to be a 
"space-enthusiast",  what is the maximum percentage probability of
fatal accident that you would accept to live on an L-5 colony or 
participate in a manned lunar base?  Maybe I'm missing the point but
if the development of the New World in the 16th and 17th century 
went the way we are developing space, then I think we might still
be waiting for the Jamestown colony to be founded.

=============================================================================================================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 83 9:58:18-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!watmath!watarts!bernie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Communications Sattelite

In order for there to be continuous shuttle-ground communications, all three
TDRS (Tracking and Data Relay Satellites) must be in place. The first has
just recently arrived at its designated orbital location, having been the
victim of a failure in the IUS (the stage that was supposed to deliver it).
Until the IUS problem has been found and fixed, the other two TDRS's are
on hold.  Thus, it will be a while yet before the complete communications
system is in place.
				--Bernie Roehl
				...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Jul-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #162    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 162

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Shuttle's Night Landing Status (FYI)
			   Re:  Space station?
		 Re: Shuttle"s Night Landing Status (FYI)
			 Jamestown and Spacetown
		     new directions and %age of risk
			 Cost of a space program
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 83 10:22:59-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!microsoft!fluke!ssc-vax!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!kwmc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle's Night Landing Status (FYI)
In-Reply-To: Article <3177@sri-arpa.UUCP>

I can see why they dont want thousands of people all taking flash
photos of the orbiter coming down.  Why is it that people take flash
photos of objects that are far away anyway   ?
			Ken Cochran     hou5d!kwmc

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 83 12:39:54-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re:  Space station?
In-Reply-To: Article <940@umcp-cs.UUCP>

We all recall how the Space Station in 2001 had both Russians and
Americans on it.  Why can't we be inspired by Clarke and do this now?

Set up a purely scientific space station, and apportion sections to
each spacefaring nation based on $ contributed.  It is also possible, I
would think, that the sections of the station could be secure so that
people could do their secret research.

Detente again, anyone?
-- 
	Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 83 15:12:09-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle"s Night Landing Status (FYI)
In-Reply-To: Article <3177@sri-arpa.UUCP> hou5d.572

I think the real reason is that they don't want large numbers of
people wandering around the desert in the dark.

My favorite occasion in which a person tried to use a flash camera to
take a picture of a faraway object was on Feb 26, 1979.  A friend and I
were setting up our telescopes in Oregon to watch the total solar
eclipse that occurred that day, and some lady walked by with a flash
camera.  One of us asked her why she had a flash, and she said "It'll
get dark, won't it?"  Neither of us had the time to explain it to her.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1983 0933-MDT
From: Pendleton@UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Jamestown and Spacetown
To: space@MIT-MC
cc: pendleTON@UTAH-20

  The real problem with comparing current developments in space travel
with the history of the exploration and exploitation of the New World
is lack of perspective.  Remember that the ship construction and
navigation technology needed to carry large payloads to the New World
had existed for ( memory don't fail me now ) about 100 years before
1492.  Yet I can remember the launching of Sputnik and I'm only
thirty.  Compared to the exploration of the New World space exploration
is proceeding at an incredible pace.

  The people trying to find new trade routes to India were doing it
for financial and political gain ( trade=money, money=power ). The
spice route of space in the 1980s is the road to GEO.  Communication
satellites make money and businesses are willing to pay for
transportation.  This creates a market for transportation.  A market
large enough to justify the development of Ariane and in part the
Shuttle.  Even the Soviets are getting into the market offering their
Proton booster.  Pure scientific research is something that
governments support because they have always made money off of it in
the past and it often gives them a military edge.

  As markets and technology ( each driving the other ) develop I have
confidence that cheap space craft, space suits, habitats... will be
developed to meet the demand.

	The cynical ex history major

            Bob Pendleton

P.S.
   If you can get it insured, I'll ride in it or live in it.
P.P.S
   This is not intended as a flame.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1983 12:10:17-EDT
From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX
To: tmcguinness@usc-isie
Subject: new directions and %age of risk
Cc: space@mit-mc

   Your analogy to Jamestown leaves out (1) the participants' ignorance of
the risk they were running, and (2) the risks entailed by living in the
allegedly civilized world at the time (quite high).
   Certainly some people are willing to undergo radical changes for the sake
of space colonization; Ben Bova (SF editor/writer who's been making lots of
pro-space noises recently) spoke with shock of a proposed political structure
for a space colony which abridged anything you'd care to think of as rights
(and if colonies were closer to the margin of safety, it might be necessary
to run them in the dictatorial fashion of old-fashioned ships).
   I'm not convinced that risk management can be blamed for more than 1-2
years' delay (caused by the Apollo fire); the dieback in the 70's was a
matter of political considerations.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1983 11:55-PDT
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@aids-unix>
Subject: Cost of a space program
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Message-Id: <83/07/21 1155.183@aids-unix>

   Has anyone ever really considered just how expensive space exploration
   really is?  [From <TMCGUINNESS@USC-ISIE>]

 There are a variety of reasons for pursuing space exploration.  Notable
among them: Many people believe that space may be the only hope for
continuance of the species (assuming that's a desirable thing) because
of the high risk to racial survival we impose upon ourselves through
everything from population growth to the possibility of nuclear war.
Perhaps a reasonable counter-question is, "Have you considered the cost
of NOT exploring space?".

   I'm not against the expenditures of funds for military space
   programs, or for  things like Space Telescope or IRAS but these
   projects all represent a sort of Big Think that will keep space as
   an area where you place sensors or weapons rather than an area for
   resource exploitation or human development.

 It's important to distinguish between what we want and how we can get it.
Probably most space exploration advocates (and certainly all the non-military
ones I personally know) are interested seeing peaceful exploration and,
usually, colonization and "development" of space -- in other words,
"resource exploitation or human development".
 The people with the money to fund these ventures, however, have a
rather different list of priorities.  Since (all our collective flaming
notwithstanding) the viability of commercial uses of space is not as yet
established, the fast path to space development would seem to be through
governmental (including military) money.  Whether or not one approves of
such an approach to funding, it has historically been the case that
government tends to absorb development costs for projects that seem worthwhile
but are too large or high-risk to attract commercial capital.  (Trivial
example: I believe that the Wright brothers were partly funded by the
U.S. Army.)

   ...what is the maximum percentage probability of fatal accident that
   you would accept to live on an L-5 colony or participate in a manned
   lunar base?

 This would seem to be a red herring.  We needn't make the decision for
anyone other than ourselves, and I would certainly go given the degree
of risk I would expect to encounter in, say, a two-year-old lunar colony.
The problem is not (and has never been) finding volunteers willing to
accept the risk; it has been finding the funding for those willing to
undertake the risk.

   trying to temper hope with pragmatism,		asc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #163    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 163

Today's Topics:
			      Re: sattelites
			      Apollo Day 14
			      Re: sattelites
			   Re:  Space station?
			      Re: sattelites
			 Fender benders in space!
			 expansion into Universe
				   SETI
		      MAYBE WE NEED A NEW DIRECTION
		       Re: SPACE Digest V3 #162    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 83 11:11:05-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!CSvax.Pucc-H.Physics.els @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: sattelites
In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.3180

   I beg to differ, but the shuttle has a line of sight to TDRS-1 LESS than
50% of the time.  I haven't worked it out yet(in the literature they call that
'exercise left for reader'), but geostationary orbit isn't very high compared
to the diameter of the earth.  Common sense tells you that to be visible 50%
of the time, TDRS would have to be infinitely far away.  When the TDRS system
is operational, the three satellites (separated by 120 degrees) will each be
visible from the ground to about 1/3 of the globe.  From its slightly higher
vantage, the shuttle ought to be able to see any given one more than 1/3 of the
time, roughly 40% is my guess.

                                    els{Eric Strobel}
                                    pur-ee!pur-phy!els

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 83 22:55:10-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!allegra!phr @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Apollo Day 14

Another happy Apollo day to all of you.

	Once it was Mother, and God and the country,
	Once it was flags, and the Fourth of July,
	But Spirit, the Eagle is changing its course
	And I know that the horses of war...
	Finally die.

			-- from "Armstrong", a
			wonderful song (right up there
			with "Hope Eyrie") which appears
			on Spasm One, by Marty Burke.
			Anyone know who wrote the song?

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 83 6:09:42-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: sattelites
In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.3180 pur-phy.835

In the interests of reducing netnews traffic in general and flame reduction
in particular, I've worked out the percentage visibility between
a shuttle orbiter and a geostationary satellite.  Using my orbit program
and a bit of geometry, I stepped through a one day period in 10 second steps,
counting the number of steps in which the shuttle can see the geostationary
satellite. The answer is 54.87%.

Assumptions:

1. The shuttle is in a ~300 km, 28.46 deg inclination circular orbit.
(Specifically I used STS-7.)
2. Not knowing the final location of TDRS-1, I used SBS-2 which is
parked at 97 deg west.  The actual position won't matter when averaged
over a long interval, since the TDRS will rotate once per day around the
shuttle's orbit plane.
3. The earth is perfectly spherical for purposes of visibility.
4. Communications aren't cut off until the earth itself actually blocks
the direct line-of-sight path. (I.e., the atmosphere is ignored.)


Phil

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 83 10:41:20-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!5941ux!rwhw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re:  Space station?
In-Reply-To: Article <940@umcp-cs.UUCP> watmath.5545

I would assume that a space station would be the ideal place defense
equipment that could easily destroy ICBMs. Therefore Reagan might not
be so wrong in his thinking.

                                    Roy

<insert "for" between place and defense> sorry.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 83 13:59:45-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxz!halle1 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: sattelites
In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.3180, <835@pur-phy.UUCP>

Not true.  Common sense, and a little pencil and paper sketch, says that
the satellite must be infinitely high for 50% of the GROUND to see it,
but for something else in orbit, it could be seen significantly more than
50% of the time without being so far away.  The exact
amount would depend on the altitudes of the two
objects.  I haven't worked out the situation for a geosynchronous orbit
and the shuttle.  I expect that 33% is about right.  However, that does
not alter the fact that one could easily set up a situation where two
satellites would be sufficient for 100% contact.

------------------------------

Date: 22 July 1983 10:47 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Fender benders in space!
To: Halbert.PA @ PARC-MAXC
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

How dumb can they be!!!! Didn't they simulate the whole launch and
orbital sequence on a computer and notice that the booster was
drifting uncomfortably close to the Oscar-10 satellite and decide to
make sure they were far apart? Or didn't anyone on their staff
randomly do an armchair calculation and notice the booster wasn't far
away and wonder if it could possibly be within collision distance?

(Gee, monday-morning quarterbacking is fun and accurate isn't it!)

------------------------------

Date: 22 July 1983 11:31 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  expansion into Universe
To: KING @ KESTREL
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, HPM @ MIT-MC

Don't be so sure we can't expand exponentially.
In fixed coordinates indeed we can expand at most cubically at speed
of light, that is VOLUME = (TIME-Starttime)^3*Constant. But the
apparent expansion in the local coordinate systems of the travelers
could possibly make it seem like exponential expansion, that is there
mmay be no limits to growth until the whole Universe is filled.
Remember the calculation that at constant one-gee the whole Universe
can be circumnaigated in a few hundred years ship-time (assuming
18-billion-light-year diameter; with factor of 10^80 thrown in due to
inflationary Universe it may take a little longer, perhaps close to a
thousand years).

(Perhaps HPM can give us more accurate figures for normal and
inflationary Universe?)

------------------------------

Date: 22 July 1983 11:43 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: SETI
To: csin!cjh @ CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Here's my view on this. We certainly can't prove life elsewhere
impossible until we've examined every little nook and cranney in the
Universe, which makes the question moot since at that point we've
filled every nook and cranney with our own stuff and probably dumped
contamination around which has evolved in strange ways. What we can do
is set an upper bound on the extent of life elsewhere, the same way we
set upper bounds on other quantities such as deviation from
inverse-square law (last I heard F=m1*m2/r^k where k=2.0000000000000
plus or minus some small number in that last place, or somesuch). So
far we have shown ETI hasn't conquered Earth in any gross way or
jammed our communications. With our next series of experiments we hope
to either **FIND** intelligent life elsewhere or set a new upper-bound
that on hundreds of nearby stars no major broadcasting such as TV or
radar is occurring presently. As years go by we will continue to crank
down the limit on life elsewhere or actually discover some out there.

It's literally we can't refute the hypothesis "there is life
elsewhere", thus that literal hypothesis isn't scientific. But we can
refute "The Galaxy is teeming with civilizations as advanced as hours"
within the next 50 years, and "The Galaxy is teeming with microscopic
life on every little planet that happens to be at the right
temperature" within the next few hundred years, or sooner if we get
those Alpha Centuri and Epsilon Eridani probes launched in time.
Therefore statements about specific amounts of "teeming with life" are
indeed scientifically valid. In particular, Sagan's major question,
whether there are billions of advanced civilizations in this galaxy or
just a handful, can be decided within the next 50 years.

------------------------------

Date: 22 July 1983 11:55 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: MAYBE WE NEED A NEW DIRECTION
To: TMCGUINNESS @ USC-ISIE
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Jamestown and Plymouth were founded by those persecuted who wanted to
escape. Earlier, Columbus staffed his ships with prisoners who would
get a pardon if they volunteered to sail off the edge of the Earth.
Rotting in jail was more painful than instant edge-of-earth death, and
there was always the possibility that the ship might get stranded on
some island before reaching the edge, or they might escape somehow, so
they chose the voyage.

Do we want to do the same now, force death-row people to fly to space?
Warning, in those days, you went to jail for life because you were
bankrupt, your debts were greater than your assets, often because
somebody cheated you and you couldn't prove it. Thus for the most part
those crews were good people in desperate situations. Nowadays most
death-row innamtes are multiple murderers who killed for money, not
the best crew for space adventures. Or do we want to return to the
days when bankrupt people went to jail and rotted there?

I really don't think we can afford to send people up on risky flights.
Normal people will refuse to go, and criminals will be criminals and
sabotage the launch so they have a chance to escape or just be totally
incompetant to get useful work done. Thus we have to go with
moderately safe vehicles, although perhaps not as safe as NASA has
traditionally enforced.

/----------------/

Regarding the question of space development vs. sensors&weapons: I
agree, although Einstein/Uhura and IRAS were/are wonderful, and
space-based defense against ICBMs may be necessary for our survival,
we really need to work on materials and habitat too!

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 1983 1247-PDT
From: JTSCHUDY at USC-ISIE
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #162    
To:   Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc:   JTSCHUDY at USC-ISIE

In response to your message sent  22 Jul 83  0303 PDT


Please delete me from the mailing list.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Jul-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #164    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 164

Today's Topics:
			   Re:  Space station?
			Re: Re: sattelites - (nf)
		 Re: Shuttle"s Night Landing Status (FYI)
		    TDRS's -- Let's get them up there!
		    Re: Myths of the Space Age - (nf)
			 Re: Apollo Day 14 - (nf)
			   Whale intelligence 
				   SETI
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 83 2:15:39-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!watmath!watarts!geo @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re:  Space station?
In-Reply-To: Article <940@umcp-cs.UUCP> watmath.5545

I like the idea of a multinational space station too.
One additional advantadge, besides saving money, would
be that it would prevent paranoia over what those guys
were doing up there if you shared the same station.
	Cordially, Geo Swan, Integrated Studies, University of Waterloo
	(allegra||ihnp4)!watmath!watarts!geo

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 83 7:28:49-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!moore @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: sattelites - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-301500:ucbcad:9900001:000:851
ucbcad!moore    Jul 21 14:19:00 1983

	Just to put a silver spike through this topic: if you
have two objects orbiting at radii of R1 and R2 over a planet
of radius r, then the maximum angle the two objects can be
separated and still see each other is given by

	Theta_Max = arccos(r/R1) + arccos(r/R2)

For r = 4000 miles (Earth radius?), R1 = 26300 miles (geosynchronous
radius), R2 = r + 100 miles (shuttle radius?), we get 
Theta_Max ~= 94 degrees, so the shuttle will be within line of
sight of the communication satellite 2*94/360 or ~52% of the time.

	BTW, a geosynchronous satellite covers 45% of the equator and
42% of the earths surface. This is what COULD be covered, according
to the geometry of the problem; I don't know if the reception is at all
acceptable at the fringes of the covered region.

	Peter Moore

	...!ucbvax!moore 	(USENET)
	moore@berkeley          (ARPANET)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 83 14:24:03-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!we13!otuxa!tty3b!tag @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle"s Night Landing Status (FYI)
In-Reply-To: Article <3177@sri-arpa.UUCP> hou5d.572, <1046@eagle.UUCP>

You mentioned taking flash pictures of eclipses, etc.  The *REAL* reason
this don't work is 'cause light takes 2 or 3 seconds to go to the moon
and back!  Don't you see?  The camera shutter is already closed by the 
time the flash returns!   - Tom Gloger      :-)

------------------------------

Date:     23 Jul 83 10:39-EST (Sat)
From: Alexander Wolf <wolf.umass-cs@UDel-Relay>
Return-Path: <wolf%umass-cs.UMASS-CS@UDel-Relay>
Subject:  TDRS's -- Let's get them up there!
To: space@mit-mc
Via:  UMASS-CS; 23 Jul 83 10:53-EDT

[begin cynical comment]

   Why don't we hire Ariane to throw the damn TDRS's up there?!

[end]

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 83 3:33:12-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!courtney @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Myths of the Space Age - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-306000:hp-pcd:8400010:000:1097
hp-pcd!courtney    Jul 21 14:03:00 1983

Of course there are other intelligent forms of life than Homo Sapien...

              ...right here on Earth!!!


Have you ever considered Cetaceans or other Primates in your search for
intelligent life?

Just because dolphins and baboons don't build a bunch of STUFF to carry
around with them so as to expand their ability to CHANGE their environment,
does that mean that they aren't engaged in other forms of expression which
might be as high or even higher than our own?

Not only do dolphins spend only 3% of their time feeding (the rest PLAYING),
there is strong evidence that they have complex social structures (they may
know what LOVE is).  They also communicate in a language that is theoretically
capable of transfering information at a much greater rate than humans!  Keep
in mind that dolphins are on a different twig of the same evolutionary branch
as humans... they "chose" to return to the sea to continue their development, 
which may be a profoundly good choice as it may be the only part of the Earth
that continues to support life within the next couple of centuries (years?).

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 83 19:11:37-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!olson @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Apollo Day 14 - (nf)

#R:allegra:-166300:fortune:10200006:000:176
fortune!olson    Jul 22 12:20:00 1983

It was written by John Stewart, and is on at least one of his albums.
(Not being at home, I can't tell you which one, off the top of my
head.)
	Dave Olson
	hpda!fortune!olson

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 83  0926 PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@S1-A>
Subject: Whale intelligence 
To:   space@MIT-MC

Dolphins have brains as big as ours, and have had them for 30 million
years, while ours have been this big for only about three million.
Sperm whales' brains, the biggest in the world, are between five and ten
times as big as ours.  Killer whales and elephants have larger brains
than we.
	Nevertheless, I think humans have the upper hand intellectually.
At least since the dawn of civilization (maybe a mere twenty thousand
years ago) our intelligence has not been limited by our brains.  Since
the advent of record keeping, and its more elaborate offspring, writing,
we could memorize and recall more things more accurately, and communicate
them over longer distances and times, than with our unaided brains.  We
could also maipulate the symbols more precisely in written form than in
our minds, and thus accomplish mental feats otherwise impossible.

	The ability to make permanent records which can be read later and
by others was like adding a tape to a finite state machine, turning it
into a universal Turing machine.  The finite state mechanism of whales
may be larger, but without a tape their accomplishments are probably
strongly circumscribed.

	On the other hand, I see no reason why dolphins can't be given
access to books and computers (as John Lilly's human-dolphin institute
is attempting), and perhaps getting spectacular returns.
A possible problem is that Dolphins have had their brains for so long
and may thus be so well adjusted to them and their way of life that
they no longer have the flexibility to enter into radically different ways
of thought and action.   Humans have been in an evolutionary and
cultural turmoil for the last few million years, which is probably
a major explanation for the oft bemoaned "human condition", but it has
left us open to new possibilities and permitted our intellectual
growth.  It is also what is making possible our expansion into space,
something which the whales have little chance of doing unless we give
them a lift.  Their existence may be idyllic, but it is limited.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 1983 20:55-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: SETI
Via:  Usc-Cse; 23 Jul 83 21:33:08

I seem to recall reading in SPACEFLIGHT (a British Interplanetary
Society publication) that all-sky radio searches have already set an
upper limit of about 20,000 on the number of very advanced
civilizations in the galaxy (where very advanced means with beacons we
could detect).

A recent issue also pointed out that even with a manufacturing
efficiency of .1% antimatter would make sense as a rocket fuel, and
antimatter reaction engines would not be difficult to build (p + anti-p
reaction produces mostly charged pions, which can be directed aft with
strong magnetic fields).  To get some idea of the energy involved, one
gigawatt for one year is about 10 kg; at .1% efficiency 10 tons of
antimatter would need about 10 million gigawatts for one year.  This is
the amount of sunlight passing through a square several thousand
kilometers on a side in earth orbit, in one year.

 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #165    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 165

Today's Topics:
			    High cost of space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 83 1:17:06-EDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!philipl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: High cost of space

I think TOM MCGUINNESS has a good point about how expensive the development
of space is.  Not that I begrudge the money NASA gets; I think that the more
they get, the better (as I'm sure do most of the people who read this group).

However, they could do a lot more with their money if they were willing to
take higher risks.  We haven't had a single American die in space, which is
something to be proud of, but has it been worth the cost?

In the early days of air flight, a lot of non-government development was
done, and a lot of people lost their lives in the process.  It should be
possible for equally rapid (and profitable) development to happen with
space flight, if people (both astronauts and investors) are willing to put
up with the high risks.

So far, no one has.

Philip Lantz
tekmdp!bronze!philipl

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #166    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 166

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Dolphin + Whale Intelligence
		 TDRS line-of-sight what portion of time?
		    TDRS's -- Let's get them up there!
		    Re: Myths of the Space Age - (nf)
			       Life on Mars
		     Re: Launching TDRSS with Ariane
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  24 July 1983 16:47 edt
From:  Jarrell.Advisor at SYSTEM-M.PHOENIX.HONEYWELL
Subject:  Re: Dolphin + Whale Intelligence
Reply-To:  Jarrell.Advisor%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

Who's to say that the whales and friends have a more limited existence
because they can't build the things we do?  Are they really worse off
because they can't nuke each other out of existence?

As for their lack of printed material and access to computers; Why do they
need them?  Even we humans with our puny brians have a rich history or
oral tradition.  Great things were accomplished by civilizations that did
little or no writing. It is quite possible for the dolphins to have a much
larger memory capacity than us, and to keep accurate mental records of
their entire society.

This would neccessarily be a mental society, which does not mean inferior.
Who knows, they may spend most of their lives playing *because* they are
more intelligent..

                    -Ron

------------------------------

Date: 25 July 1983 19:21 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  TDRS line-of-sight what portion of time?
To: pur-ee!CSvax.Pucc-H.Physics.els @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Sigh, I was hoping somebody on this list had already computed it or
had access to NASA info whereby somebody there had. But since
everybody seems to be guessing, here's my try at actual calculation:

I'm assuming Earth's radius is 3800 miles and Geosynch orbit is 22,300
miles from the surface, or 26,100 miles from the center. I'm assuming
the Earth's equator is circular and STS orbits 100 miles up (50 miles
is the official start of "outer space" and STS wants to be up a bit
higher). If any of these figures are wrong please send me corrections
or recompute it yourself and send the calculations.

Draw tangent from TDRS in geosynch to Earth, and radius lines to both
tangent pint and TDRS, yielding right triangle. THETA = angle of
half-Earth as viewed from TDRS. sin(THETA) = 3800/26100 = 0.14559,
THETA = 8 deg 22 in = 8.367 deg. PHI = angle between tangent point and
TDRS as viewed from center of Earth = 90-8.367 deg = 81.633 deg. Thus
that portion of surface that can see TDRS (assuming no atmosphere) is
81.633*2/360 = 0.4535, a little less than half as expected.

Now extend the ray from TDRS to tangent point past the tangent point
to intersect the orbit of STS, and draw radius line to this new point.
The right triangle including tangent point, STS point, and center of
Earth, has a center angle OMEGA with cos(OMEGA) = 3800/3900 = 0.97435,
OMEGA=13 deg. Adding OMEGA and PHI we get 94.633 deg, so STS can see
TDRS (assuming atmosphere transparent to microwave) 94.633*2/360 =
0.5257, i.e. more than half the time.

Lowering STS to 50 miles, cos(OMEGA) = 3800/3850 = 0.98701, OMEGA =
9 deg 15 min = 9.25 deg, OMEGA+PHI = 90.883, so even in very low Earth
orbit STS would just barely exceed 50% of the time seeing TDRS.

I've assumed STS is in equatorial orbit. I don't think the inclination
affects whether 50% is exceeded or not, just by how much it's exceeded
or not-reached. (Argument, consider the point of STS orbit nearest
TDRS, even though it isn't at the same longitude as TDRS is. Forget
about latitude and longitude here. Now consider the points exactly one
quarter of an STS orbit in each direction. These points are in
identical places in space regardless of inclination of STS's orbit
providing we change the inclination in only the direction that affects
its visibility from TDRS. The above calculations show these two points
are slightly above the Earth-horizon as viewed from TDRS.)

------------------------------

Date: 25 July 1983 19:49 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: TDRS's -- Let's get them up there!
To: wolf.umass-cs @ UDEL-RELAY
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date:     23 Jul 83 10:39-EST (Sat)
    From: Alexander Wolf <wolf.umass-cs@UDel-Relay>
    [begin cynical comment]
       Why don't we hire Ariane to throw the damn TDRS's up there?!
    [end]
Because Ariane isn't reliable. They have lost several payloads due to
booster malfunction, burning up in the atmosphere almost immediately.
I don't think we have a bunch of TDRS's to spare, do we?

Maybe in a year or so Ariane will have proved itself (it seems to be
getting better, but let's wait before we do anything drastic).

Here's an alternative idea: how about hiring some USSR rocket? They
have been pretty reliable for a lot of years. A lot of human beings
have ridden them, and except for one air leak and one other problem
nobody has been killed recently. The rockets themselves seem very
reliable. Maybe even send up on a manned mission? (Is there enough
extra payload capacity??)

------------------------------

Date: 25 July 1983 19:52 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Myths of the Space Age - (nf)
To: hplabs!hp-pcd!courtney @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I think we've been through all this intelligent-life-in-Earth before,
perhaps a year ago? In summary, yes there is intelligent life other
than Humans on Earth, but only Humans have transmitted radio signals
out where they could be heard by other creatures around other stars,
and as far as we know only Humans have (built) receivers capable of
searching for ETI out there. Thus only Humans are relevant (on Earth)
in regard to SETI.

------------------------------

Date: 25 July 1983 21:19 EDT
From: bruc@mit-ml
Sender: BRUC @ MIT-MC
Subject: Life on Mars
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

	There was an interesting article in today's Boston Globe on
the results of the Viking experiments and some new experiments done on
earth. Specifically, there is sample of soil from a dry valley in
Antarctica which duplicates the labeled release experiment and the gas
chromatograph experiment. In the labeled release experiment, one soil
sample was given some nutrient rich, labeled solution and labeled CO2
was measured over time. A second sample was heated first before being
given the solution, presumably to kill the microbes. The first sample
on Mars released a lot of CO2, the second very little. The gas
chromatograph / mass spectrometer measured organic compounds. On Mars,
no organics were found above the sensitivity of the detector. They key
here is that the number of microbes in the Antarctic sample is very
small so the GCMS doesn't see it.
	A second piece of evidence is rearrangement of green colored
patches on a Martian roc over the course of a year. The rock must be
fairly distant from the lander because its image is only about 10 by
20 pixels. They look like lichens. All very interesting. It's clear we
should go back for another look.
	One interesting speculation that I had about this -- if there
is life on Mars, it's quite possible it came from Earth. Since
material from Mars is believed to have traveled to the earth and
landed in Antarctica (by being blasted from Mars by a meteor impact
and eventually intersecting the earth's orbit), the reverse is also
possible. I wonder if the spores of ancient microorganisms would be
capable of surviving the voyage (suitably encased or shielded by
rock)..

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 83 17:03:40-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Launching TDRSS with Ariane
In-Reply-To: Article <1723@rabbit.UUCP>

As Jan said, the problem is with the IUS.  A report by an investigative
committee set up by NASA after the IUS-TDRS-1 incident suggested that
the problem was with a deflated ring that cushioned the nozzle of the
IUS.  NASA is currently investigating this and, if it turns out that this
is indeed the problem, hopes to have it corrected AND TESTED by June
of next year.  Meanwhile, they are contemplating using the third stage
of a Delta rocket in replacement of the IUS for upcoming missions.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Jul-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #167    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 167

Today's Topics:
			     needles in orbit
				 dolphins
				  Books
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 83 8:09:45-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: needles in orbit

can anyone out there provide me with some information about
an experiment which was (perhaps) carried out some years ago?

to the best of my knowledge it consisted of depositing a load
of copper (?) needles in low-earth orbit, possibly to act as
reflectors.

        david dixon, univ.of kent,uk
...!vax135!ukc!dgd
w

------------------------------

Date: Tue 26 Jul 83 14:36:28-PDT
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: dolphins
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: wilkins@SRI-AI.ARPA

While it is true that dolphins cannot propel themselves off planet 
or send out radio signals, let's not forgot that the unknown can hold
myriad wonders.  I'm sure we've all read way-out-there SF and sometimes
truth is stranger than fiction.  Perhaps the dolphins do not need radio
for interstellar communication (they may have figured out telepathy or
how to alter the spin on certain subatomic particles to transfer 
information to some distant point), perhaps they do not need computers
or written records (they may use their larger brains much more efficiently),
and perhaps they've already made a deal with some other intelligence to 
come get them when the sun burns out (or earlier if homo sapiens are
dumb enough to ruin the oceans).  This is all a long shot and the smart
money is still on the humans, but let's not completely count them out
yet.

Have fun, David
-------

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 83 8:36:09 PDT
From: lamming.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Books
To: space@Mit-Mc.ARPA
Reply-To: lamming.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA


Having just read "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe (Bantam) I noticed in
the author's notes a list of references.  I went to my local library and
discovered that most were out of print.  Can anyone help me find the
following (or save me the effort if they are crummy):

This New Ocean: a History of Project Mercury by James M. Grimwood et al.
Always Another Dawn by A. Scott Crossfield
Starfall, by Betty Grissom and Henry Still
Across the High Frontier by Charles Yeager and William Lundgren
The Lonely Sky by Richard Bridgeman
X-15 Diary by Richard Tregaskis
We Seven by the seven Mercury Astronauts

							Thanks,  Mik

------------------------------

Date: 26 July 1983 23:11 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC>
To: Bruc @ MIT-ML
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, KFL @ MIT-MC

        Date: 25 July 1983 21:19 EDT
        From: bruc@mit-ml
                One interesting speculation that I had about this -- if there
        is life on Mars, it's quite possible it came from Earth. Since
        material from Mars is believed to have traveled to the earth and
        landed in Antarctica (by being blasted from Mars by a meteor impact
        and eventually intersecting the earth's orbit), the reverse is also
        possible. I wonder if the spores of ancient microorganisms would be
        capable of surviving the voyage (suitably encased or shielded by
        rock)..
  Or perhaps life on Earth got started from a meteor from Mars or
elsewhere.  Maybe life in the universe only started once and then
drifted to Earth and other planets.
                                                                ...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Jul-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #168    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 168

Today's Topics:
			 Galileo Test Successful
		     Re: Launching TDRSS with Ariane
			 Recommendations anyone??
			  Star Wars (continued)
			 Problems Testing TDRS-1
			     needles in orbit
				 We Seven
				Space seed
				 history
			    Galileo & Jupiter
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 83 20:05:09-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Galileo Test Successful

The Air Force today successfully drop tested a prototype of the
Galileo spacecraft that will fly into Jupiter's atmosphere in
the late 1980's.  The probe was carried aloft to almost 100,000
feet by a hot air balloon and then dropped, hitting the ground
9 minutes later.  Pictures taken of the craft and data gathered
by it will be analyzed by NASA over the next few weeks.  The probe
will be unleashed from an orbiter section that will remain in
orbit around Jupiter and relay information from it.  The entire
craft will be launched from the space shuttle.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 83 13:21:46-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!wolit @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Launching TDRSS with Ariane

Alexander Wolf suggested that "we hire Ariane to throw the damn 
TDRS's up there."  Sorry, Alex, but the problem with TDRSS isn't in
the STS (Shuttle) system, but in the Boeing Inertial Upper Stage (IUS)
that's used to boost the satellite into geosynchronous orbit.  It
doesn't matter how you get into low earth orbit if you can't depend on
the IUS to get you higher.

	Jan Wolitzky, BTL Murray Hill

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 83 9:33:21-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihldt!bnp @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Recommendations anyone??

	I've recently re-discovered an old interest in amateur
astronomy.  My background, however is "limited" at best.  I was
hoping that someone onthe net might be able to recommend good
introductory materials on observational astronomy.  I need
background materials on the terminology, techniques and caculations
involved in "star watching".
	Please respond by mail; if anyone else is interested and
I'll forward a copy of my receipts.  If enough interest is expressed,
I'll post a summary.

			Thanks,
				Bruce Peters
				BTL - Naperville, Ill.
				...!ihnp4!ihldt!bnp

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 83 13:06:20-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!wolit @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Star Wars (continued)

(This discussion probably more properly belongs in fa.arms-d, but we
haven't seen much of that group lately -- maybe ARPA didn't like
funding the opposition -- so I might as well continue it here.)

I just read on the news wire that the Air Force's NKC-135 airborne
laser weapons lab successfully "defeated" five AIM-9 Sidewinder
air-to-air missiles fired from an A-7 attack aircraft in a test over 
the Navy's China Lake test center.  This is apparently the test that
failed last year.  The press, clearly with an eye toward Reagan's 
"Star Wars" speech, made several comparisons between the Sidewinder 
and ICBMs that will do much to confuse the subject in the minds of 
the general public.

Does anyone know whether the test was actually supposed to destroy the
missiles (which would require an impressively powerful laser) or simply
to "blind" them (the AIM-9 is an infrared homer)?  My guess is the
latter, which is still a good trick, though other, less sophisticated
measures, like dropping flares, can also perform a similar task.

	Jan Wolitzky, BTL Murray Hill

(PS: Although the article didn't say so, I assume the Sidewinders were
unarmed.  Else this interservice rivalry is getting hotter than I thought!)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 83 7:31:55-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Problems Testing TDRS-1

Problems in the testing phase of TDRS-1 may delay the next launch
or two, unless NASA can check the satellite out in time.  The trouble
is not with the satellite itself but rather with ground equipment.
Software errors (!) prevented technicians at the ground station at
White Sands from locking onto the satellite.  That was corrected
last Friday, but subsequent power and backup generator failures have
hampered the testing effort.  NASA is currently hoping for a 20 August
STS-8 launch and a 30 September STS-9 launch.

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 27 July 1983 10:36:40 EDT
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
cc: harpo!floyd!vax135!ukc!dgd@Ucb-Vax
Subject: needles in orbit

I remember reading about the orbiting needle experiment in the NASA booklet
"Space - The New Frontier" in around 1962-3.  I forget the name of the
project.  The idea was to girdle the Earth with a ring of copper needles
cut to the right length, and use it for reflecting radio communications.
I think it was a Navy project.

A few years ago, I read (I don't remember where) that the experiment had
been carried out over the loud protests of radio astronomers.  It was a
failure, but turned out not to interfere with radio telescopes, either.
The needles all burned up in the atmosphere in a few years.

A ring of needles is just what we need to compete for space with spacecraft
and skyhooks.

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 27 July 1983 10:22:19 EDT
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
cc: lamming.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: We Seven

I came across a copy of We Seven in the CMU Engineering and Science Library.
It's pretty interesting.  Tom Wolfe makes a big deal about the Original Seven
not really being the best pilots around.  Scott Carpenter seems to admit as
much in his chapter of We Seven.  He described a zero-gee flight in the
back seat of an F-100.  The pilot flew a series of parabolic arcs, then
turned over the controls to Carpenter.  Carpenter could not maintain the
proper speed and trajectory.  He felt very embarrassed.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 1983 0900-MDT
From: Pendleton@UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Space seed
To: Space@MIT-MC
cc: pendleTON@UTAH-20

   The idea that life developed only once in the galaxy and then
spread through space is quite old.  In fact E. E. "Doc" Smith used it
in the Lensman series to explain the rapid devlopment of almost
identical species throughout the two galaxies.  I believe this is
referred to as the "Pansperamatic" theory of the development of life.

          Bob Pendleton

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 1983 17:36:02-EDT
From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: history

   (1) Jamestown was not founded by the persecuted; it was founded by the
get-rich-quick types. (The mix of colonists in SF that discusses interstellar
colonization frequently reflects the mix that colonized this
country---fanatics, money-grubbers, freaks, "inspired pioneers" (damn few of
those)---yes, those are uncomplimentary terms but that's the way the
stay-at-homes thought of them.

   (2) The original Wright brothers flyer was not supported by the military;
my recollection is that it was at least 1908 before the Wrights could get the
military to pay attention to them. In an interesting parallel, the first
branch they hit was the Signal Corps. . . .

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 83 14:02:25-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!kwmc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Galileo & Jupiter

Could someone please enlighten me as to what Galileo is expected
to measure as it plummets toward Jupiter?   Also isn't the atmosphere
of Jupiter disturbed by high winds and lightening? How will the craft
maintain stability and radio communication with the orbiter ?

				Ken Cochran           hou5d!kwmc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Jul-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #169    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 169

Today's Topics:
			 Challenger Moved to VAB
				Panspermia
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #168
			    Galileo & Jupiter
			Re: Star Wars (continued)
			 Launching TDRS on Ariane
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 83 21:36:43-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Challenger Moved to VAB

The Challenger today was moved to the Vehicle Assembly Building after
spending a record (for shortness!) 26 days in the Orbiter Processing
Facility.  Workers immediately began attaching the shuttle to its
external tank and SRB's for the upcoming launch of STS-8 after the
15 minutes move.  NASA is still hoping for a 20 August launch of STS-8,
but problems with the testing of TDRS-1 may delay that; a firm date
is expected to be announced within a week.

The crew for STS-8 will be Dick Truly, Dan Brandenstein, Dale Gardner,
Bill Thorton, and Guion S. Bluford, who will become the first black
in space.  John Young will command STS-9, making a world record sixth
trip into space.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 1983 9:50-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Panspermia
Via:  Usc-Cse; 28 Jul 83 10:31:21

The theory that life originated once and then spread from planet to
planet is called "panspermia".  The original formulation was that
bacterial spores are pushed around by light pressure.  The fatal flaw:
the spores would be quickly sterilized by UV and cosmic radiation, long
before they could reach another star system.  The same applies to
spores in rocks going to/from Mars, unless you get incredibly lucky and
the rocks land quickly.

Crick (of DNA fame) has suggested directed panspermia, where alien
civilizations seed new planets.  The usual "where are they" argument
applies here too.

 

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Jul 83 14:29 CDT
From: Sanchez.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #168
In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 28 Jul 83 03:03 PDT"
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: ihnp4!hldt!bnp@Ucb-Vax.ARPA

Bruce:  I read your message and I too am interested in astronomy so if
you get any information on the subject please drop me a message.  I hope
that you get a good response.


                         Thanks,
                                  Miguel Sanchez
                                  Xerox Dallas, TX

p.s.  Do you know a guy named Mike Seitz from Naperville that goes to
Southern Methodist University in Dallas?

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 83 14:27:06-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!patm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Galileo & Jupiter

	Regarding Ken Cochran's request for info on the Galileo
mission, the feature article in the August SKY & TELESCOPE covers
the mission quite well. You'll find details of the orbiter and
probe, the scientific instrumentation, mission objectives and
time tables.

Pat McNamara
Tektronix, Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 83 10:11:09-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!5941ux!rwhw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Star Wars (continued)
In-Reply-To: Article rabbit.1722

Is the comment made by Reagan still humorous? Remember R. Fulton was also
laughed at.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 83 7:20:17-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Launching TDRS on Ariane

I have been watching this discussion with a fair amount of amusement.
A few observations are in order:

1. The reliability of Ariane in terms of delivering payloads to the
nominal orbit, bad as it may be (4/6 success rate if you ignore the
little problem with the Oscar-10 separation) is better than the
Shuttle/IUS system (0/1 success rate so far.)  Of course, this isn't
really fair as both rates are bound to improve.  I expect that the
success rates for both future IUS and Ariane launches will be quite
good.

2. The Ariane provides a geostationary transfer orbit, which is what
the shuttle combined with the first stage of the IUS gives you.  The shuttle
and the IUS first stage worked just fine on TDRS-A; it was the apogee kick
motor (which you would still need with either launch method) which failed.

3. Ariane-1 (the current configuration) has a payload capability of
1,500 kg into TRANSFER orbit, with a net capability of 750 kg into the
final geostationary orbit.  (This takes into account the smaller apogee
kick motor required due to the lower transfer orbit inclination.) This
is far less than the mass of TDRS, making the suggestion moot.  A
dedicated STS flight carrying the DOD/NASA two-stage IUS (mass 14,515
kg) has a capacity of 2,268 kg to geostationary orbit.  Not until ESA
flies the Ariane-5 model (probably in the 1990's) will its payload
capability be comparable.

4. Whatever the political realities, ESA and NASA aren't as polarized
toward each other as you might think.  There is a considerable amount of
cooperation on such projects as Spacelab (ESA payload on a NASA launch)
and Ariane launch support (NASA facilities for ESA launches).  When the
Ariane launch schedule was slipped earlier this year because of the L-5
failure, the Exosat experiment was removed from an Ariane and launched
on a Delta instead.

5. The only part I can't understand about the IUS is why the Air Force
decided on a three-axis stabilized approach.  This seems to be just
unnecessary complexity to me as I can't see any advantages over the more
common spin-stabilized method used by the PAM for commercial payloads. 
Three axis control just makes the system more complex and subject to
failures (e.g., thrust vector control) and the payload thermal design
more difficult.  I suppose it's easier to turn the payload around for
the second firing during the five hour coast to apogee if you're not
spinning, but I can't see how it's worth all the hassle.

References for payload capacities are the NASA Space Transportation
System User Handbook and the paper Ariane Launch Vehicle: A European
Program.  Both are rather old, so the exact values may be different.

Phil

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Jul-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #170    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 170

Today's Topics:
			   Re: dolphins - (nf)
			  Re: High cost of space
		       Re: SPACE Digest V3 #166    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 83 3:34:39-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!john @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: dolphins - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-347500:hp-pcd:8400011:000:35
hp-pcd!john    Jul 27 18:01:00 1983

So long and thanks for the fish.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 83 15:47:11-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!watmath!watarts!bernie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: High cost of space
In-Reply-To: Article bronze.664

I am basically in agreement with what's been said so far (i.e. reduce costs
rather than spend *lots* of money), and feel that the sooner private
individuals can become involved in the exploration and colonization of space,
the better.  The government (even efficient parts of it, like NASA) are not
very good at doing anything important; ideally, a little healthy competition
will bring down the cost of space travel the way it's brought down the cost
of computers, video games and all the various "toys" that surround us.
However, we are not yet at the point where small, private organizations can
afford to build their own space colonies; for the time being, government
support is an unfortunate necessity.
				--Bernie Roehl
				...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 1983 1537-EDT
From: Randy Haskins <rh at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #166    
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 26-Jul-83 0302-EDT

Re: whales and dolphins

Yes, we are (as far as we know) the only species on Earth to have
sent signals into outer space.  On the other hand, maybe the dolphins
can send other signals that we can't detect?  On the third hand,
since they are intelligent, maybe they know better than to send
signals into space?  Or maybe they told some local aliens to 
come sterilize the land masses on their planet?  As Doug Adams
said,
"Man thought he was the most intelligent being on Earth because
he had invented the wheel, New York City, and war.  It was precisely
for these reasons that the dolphins thought THEY were the most
intelligent beings on Earth."
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Jul-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #171    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 171

Today's Topics:
			   Re:  Space station?
			      Nitpicking    
			       intelligence
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 83 10:51:57-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hopd3!raf @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re:  Space station?

I saw a small paragraph hidden on a back page of our local paper the other
day that sid the air force has succesfully used a laser to knock down a
series of ten air to air missles travelling in the 2000 mph range.  It
went on to say that this system would not be effective against ICBMs
because they go much faster - around 20,000 mph. Also range is a factor,
so using a space station for the purpose of knocking down ICBMs is not
feasable yet.

It seems to me though that this is a giant step in a technology that may
make nuclear weapons at long range obsolete. Let us hope,

			Ron Flannery

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 83  1310 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: Nitpicking    
To:   space@MIT-MC

	Actually, Bluford won't be the first black in space, although
he will of course be the first AMERICAN black. A Cuban black was included in
a Soviet mission a few years ago.

	Ross.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 83 11:52:18-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!morgoth @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: intelligence

This article (and others) probably really belong in net.philosopy rather
than net.space, but at any rate:

Everyone assumes SETI works because it will detect the radio emissions of
other intelligent cultures on other planets. This has two flaws: [1]
other cultures may be intelligent using other forms of communication
(i.e. telepathy) or incapable of building transmitters (dolphins). [2]
other cultures know better than we do and are paranoid enough not to 
transmit to the pirates of the universe where they are and use more energy
efficient means of communications (masers, lasers, ???).

Comments?

				Morgoth
				seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2:bwm

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Aug-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #172    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 172

Today's Topics:
		     Next Two Shuttle Flights Delayed
			       intelligence
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 83 7:28:32-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Next Two Shuttle Flights Delayed

Problems in checking out TDRS-1 have forced NASA to delay the
launches of STS-8 and STS-9.  STS-8, originally scheduled for
20 August, will now launch between 23 and 30 August.  STS-9,
originally scheduled to launch on 30 September, will probably
slip into late October; in order to gain maximum scientific
return from the flight, NASA has to launch it within a one
week window of 30 September, which is becoming unlikely.  If
they miss that opportunity, the next starts around 26 October.

------------------------------

Date: 31 July 1983 14:10 EDT
From: Gail Zacharias <GZ @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  intelligence
To: harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!morgoth @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of 28 Jul 83 11:52:18-PDT (Thu) from harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!morgoth at Ucb-Vax

So we're not looking for all possible forms of ETI, just those that we can
contact given our and their level and form of development.  This is rather
obvious if not outright tautological.  What else could we POSSIBLY do? Try
to communicate with life forms we can't contact?

Investigation of globally invisible, planet-bound life forms will
necessarily have to wait until we have the ability to visit.  That's a long
way off, and people interested in that sort of thing should get into
dolphin research (which will probably come in handy once time comes).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #173    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 173

Today's Topics:
		   re: multinational orbiting platforms
			     Rollout Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     31 Jul 83 18:13-EST (Sun)
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@UDel-Relay>
Return-Path: <gutfreund%umass-cs%UMASS-CS@UDel-Relay>
Subject:  re: multinational orbiting platforms
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: decvax!watmath!bstempleton@berkeley
Via:  UMASS-CS; 1 Aug 83 18:46-EDT

I recently listened to the Shuttle Seven crew at the National Press Club
luncheon.

I was left with the impression that there is little chance for multinational
ventures in space, let alone joint administration of platforms or stations.
Basically, NASA felt it was such a tremendous hassle with Apollo-Soyuz for
such little gain (compared to solo Apollo flights) that such efforts are
futile for the moment. (Getting information about the techincal characteristics
of the Soyuz was like pulling teeth from a bear.)

Nevertheless, they said that as far as pure information transfer goes, things
are going smoothly. They just got a big batch of info from the Soviets on
the biological effects of extended missions. They felt it could save NASA
a lot of work.

If your real goal is to search for alternate funding for space exploration
than depending solely on Uncle Sam, then I would not look to the Soviets
anyway. Their GNP is a lot lower than many Western countries. I think
a reasonable consortium of Western countries could fund a pretty respectable
space effort, and the US would probably see its bill cut.

					- Steven Gutfreund
					  Gutfreund.umass-cs@udel-relay

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 83 7:22:47-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Rollout Delayed

Due to the threat of lightning and thunderstorms, NASA has
delayed the scheduled rollout of the Challenger to pad 39A
24 hours, until 0001 EDT Tuesday.  The say the delay should
not affect the current STS-8 schedule.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Aug-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #174    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 174

Today's Topics:
			   Re:  Space station?
			Re:  "Ultraviolent" lasers
			      Life on Mars? 
			       STS-8 on Pad
				 s.e.t.i
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 83 13:01:08-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!shark!philb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re:  Space station?

	Able to knock down ICBMs screaming down at 20,000 mph, saving us
	from nuclear holocaust, eh??
	Did you ever think what such space based lasers could do to ground
	targets such as cities? X-ray, ultrviolet (ultraviolent), and 
	infrared lasers can do just as terrible, if not worse, things to
	the human body as nuclear weapons. Not to mention particle beams.
	I don't see that these kind of space based weapons are any better
	that anything we have come up with so far.......... 

					Waiting,
					Phil Biehl

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 83 16:20:00-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!orca!brucec @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re:  "Ultraviolent" lasers
In-Reply-To: Article shark.1402

Please remember that to do significant damage to an incoming ICBM, a
short wavelength laser needs to be very tightly focused, and must be
optimized for very short pulsewidths (long pulses will vaporize
sufficient target material to form a shield against the laser
radiation).  The radiation damage of the laser is intended to 1) knock
out the guidance electronics of the warhead, or 2) damage the airframe
of the warhead sufficiently to cause it to tumble and burn on re-entry.
If shooting at an ascending booster, the intent is to hole the fuel
system or airframe, causing the booster to either explode or go off
course.  No laser system that I know of is envisioned as being capable
of vaporizing a large fraction of the mass of a warhead.  As far as
particle beams go, I seriously doubt that they can do any real damage
over distance in the atmosphere, because of absorption and defocusing
(see the article by Kosta Tsipis on particle beam weapons in Scientific
American in the lsat couple of years).

Such weapons are highly ineffective against large targets like cities
or ground vehicles.  I doubt that they could even do significant damage
to a concrete building.  (Infrared lasers can cut through concrete
right now, if used in continuous mode, but such lasers are not
effective against reflective metal nosecones.  A person standing out in
the street would very likely be killed instantly by such a beam, but
the person standing ten feet away might be unscathed.  Moreover, ground
targets can dodge mush faster than ICBM warheads, whose incoming speed
makes changing aiming angle from an oncoming beam very slow.

				Bruce Cohen
				UUCP:	...!teklabs!tekecs!brucec
				CSNET:	tekecs!brucec@tektronix
				ARPA:	tekecs!brucec.tektronix@rand-relay

------------------------------

Date: 02 Aug 83  1324 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: Life on Mars? 
To:   space@MIT-MC

n533  0224  02 Aug 83
BC-MARS-3takes-08-02
    By David L. Chandler
    (c) 1983 Boston Globe (Independent Press Service)
    Seven years ago in July, a remote-controlled machine about the size
of a VW Rabbit separated itself from an orbiting spacecraft and
descended to a red, rocky plain. It was the Viking 1 lander, first
object from Earth ever to land on Mars.
    One of its primary goals was to search for signs of life, using a
set of three biological experiments. Yet seven years after that first
Viking landing, the debate rages on: Did the tests show signs of
life, or just a puzzling set of chemical reactions?
    Some scientists say there's strong, convincing evidence for life,
while others are positive that Mars is barren.
    The issue is not likely to be resolved until - and unless - there's
another Mars mission. But those who think that life is likely got a
significant boost recently when tests done on Antarctic soil were
found to duplicate the most puzzling of the results from Mars. Both
sets of tests showed evidence of microbial life, in the form of
''respiration'' of gases from the soil, and yet showed no sign of
life's basic building blocks - organic compounds - within that soil.
    In short, there is now direct evidence that life forms can exist in
soil without producing enough chemical debris - enough dead bodies -
to be detected by the Viking equipment; that, as one scientist put
it, there can be music even though there's no sign of any
instruments. By resolving the biggest apparent conflict in the Mars
data, this finding has moved some disbelievers into the ''maybe''
camp.
    But many still feel that life is unlikely on Mars. Klaus Biemann,
the scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who developed
the Viking test for organic compounds in the soil, says ''the
majority of scientists, both in and out of the Viking team, believe
that the biology experiments were negative, and that they can all be
explained by one non-biological chemical reaction or another.''
    Norman Horowitz, a Cal-Tech biochemist who designed one of Viking's
life-detection tests, has put it even more strongly. Writing about
the results of the mission in Scientific American, he said: ''At
least those areas on Mars examined by the two spacecraft are not
habitats of life.''
    On the other hand, biochemist Alexander Rich of MIT, who was also a
member of the Viking biology team, said recently: ''It is not correct
to say that Mars has been shown to be lifeless. We failed to
demonstrate that life is there, but we didn't disprove it. It's a
matter of judgment. It certainly warrants going back with a broader
set of experiments to see what's there.''
    Probably the strongest believer in the evidence for life on Mars is
Gilbert Levin, president of Biospherics Inc. of Maryland. He was the
chief scientist in charge of the Viking life-detection experiment
that gave the clearest positive results, and he says that ''If you
look objectively at the data, it's more likely than not that we
discovered life.
    ''People think the Viking tests failed to return any evidence for
life,'' says Levin. ''But in fact, there's a lot of evidence.''
    Levin thinks that his experiment, the ''labeled release'' (LR) test,
produced strong evidence for the existence of some kind of microbes -
perhaps resembling Earth bacteria or algae - by measuring
carbon-dioxide discharges from soil that had been moistened with a
nutrient solution.
    Levin also has discovered that there are greenish patches visible on
rock surfaces in the Viking photographs, which he thinks might turn
out to be a form of life similar to lichens - one of the hardiest of
living organisms.
    And other recent discoveries have also boosted the prospects for
Martian life, prompting Rich, the MIT biochemist, to say, ''I think
the conclusions are vastly different than they were before.''
    The announcement this year of the discovery of microbes that survive
at over 500 degrees F. near ocean-floor thermal vents shows that
''Life is really much more adaptive than we had anticipated,'' says
Rich. ''That discovery showed that life can adapt to extremely high
temperature and pressure, so we shouldn't write off Venus (as a
possible habitat for life). I believe this shows that life can adapt
to low temperature and pressure as well.'' On Mars, temperatures
seldom rise above freezing, and the atmospheric pressure is less than
one-hundredth of Earth's.
    As for interpreting the Viking results, Levin points out that
despite intensive efforts over the last seven years, no one has yet
come up with a specific set of chemical reactions that can explain
the results of his LR experiment on Mars. If no chemical explanation
can be found, scientists agree, a biological reaction - living
microorganisms in the Martian soil - would be the only way to account
for the data.
    
    The results of Levin's test did in fact meet all the criteria
established before the mission to conclude that life had been
discovered.
    First, a substantial positive response - consisting of a release of
gas (probably carbon dioxide) from the soil, as would be expected
from the metabolism of microorganisms such as bacteria or algae - was
obtained from each ''active'' run of the experiment in two different
regions of the Martian surface.
    And second, the biological nature of the response was apparently
confirmed by the negative results - virtually no gases produced -
from each ''control'' run, in which the soil was first sterilized by
heat. The control runs were considered a crucial test for determining
whether a response really came from living organisms, since microbes
would be killed by the high temperature and so stop ''breathing,''
whereas most non-living chemical reactions would not be affected by
the heat.
    As Viking chief biologist Harold Klein pointed out in his official
summary of the biology test results, ''The LR .-.-. yielded data
which met the criteria originally developed for a positive. On this
basis alone, the conclusion would have to be drawn that metabolizing
organisms were indeed present in all samples tested.''
    Since the test met the requirements for a ''presumptive positive,''
why didn't the scientists announce that life had been discovered? And
why do they still disagree on what the results mean?
    Levin claims with some annoyance that his fellow scientists
''changed the rules after the results were in. If we had followed the
rules, we would have stood up and said: 'We discovered life.'-''
    There were, however, three unexpected aspects of the data that
caused most of the scientists to hold back from saying that the
results indicated life in the Martian soil. One was the fact that the
LR test result, although positive, was very different from the usual
response seen in Earth soils: Instead of the rate of gas production
increasing steadily because the microorganisms multiplied rapidly in
the soil, as happens when Earth soil is tested, the Mars response
gradually leveled off.
    Biochemist Cyril Ponnamperuma, editor of the respected scientific
journal Origins of Life, says that because of this leveling off of
the response, the positive result is ''not completely convincing, but
it is tantalizing.''
    Another problem was the strange response from another life-detection
test, the Gas-Exchange experiment, which produced an intense, sudden
burst of oxygen when the Martian soil was exposed to moisture. This
result, which everyone agreed looked like a non-living chemical
reaction rather than a lifelike response, suggested to most of the
scientists that there was some kind of highly reactive chemical
compound in the soil, and that perhaps the same compound was
responsible for the LR response.
    But by far the greatest stumbling block for a biological
interpretation of the Mars data was the resoundingly negative, and
totally unexpected, result of a test called the GCMS (gas
chromatograph-mass spectrometer). This experiment searched for the
presence in Martian soil of organic (carbon-based) chemicals - the
compounds from which life is made, though they also occur naturally
even in the depths of space. Most people had expected the exact
reverse of the results that were found: That there would be plenty of
organics in the soil, but no reaction from the life tests.
    A positive life-test result with no organics seemed impossible, so
there was considerable consternation when the data came in and showed
just that.
    But this apparent conflict has now been resolved, claims Levin.
Looking back through published reports on the development of the
experiments used in the Viking mission, he found that a sample of
soil preserved in NASA laboratories, which had been collected from a
dry valley in Antarctica (the environment on Earth that comes closest
to duplicating present Martian temperatures and lack of moisture),
had been tested by both the GCMS and the much more sensitive LR test.
The results of these two independent tests very closely duplicated
the results from Mars.
    The tests showed that the soil, Antarctic soil number 726, which
contained a small quantity of living cells, had no organic chemicals
detectable by the GCMS, yet gave a clearly positive result on the LR
test. The seeming discrepancy was apparently nothing more than a
difference in the sensitivity levels of the two tests, says Levin. So
the Martian results of those two experiments, which many biologists
thought were seriously contradictory, have now been demonstrated to
be perfectly compatible.
    Biochemist Ponnamperuma was one of those who thought the conflicting
results of these two tests made it very unlikely that they indicated
life on Mars. But when asked last week about Levin's report on the
Antarctic soil, Ponnamperuma exclaimed, ''It's hard to fight that. To
me, that says that it's an open question again.''
    
    In addition to the positive LR test results, another bit of evidence
for Martian life that Levin has discovered is that, contrary to the
first reports from the Viking imaging team, the surface seen in the
photographs of the Martian landscape is not uniformly red. In fact,
there are small greenish patches on some of the rocks and on the soil.
    These patches have changed shape and position over the course of a
Martian year (about two Earth years), and they appear to match quite
closely the appearance, color, and thickness of terrestrial lichens,
long thought to be the form of Earth life best adapted for survival
in the cold, dry Martian climate. Levin points out that lichens are
the pioneers of life on Earth, the first living things to appear on
barren rocks. His analysis of the color and the changing shapes of
the patches on Mars has since been confirmed by other NASA scientists.
    With so many signs pointing toward at least a possibility of current
life on Mars, why do most scientists continue to speak so negatively
about that possibility?
    Levin thinks his colleagues are afraid that ''If we're proven wrong
by the next lander, we'll look foolish.'' But to Levin, the reverse
seems at least as likely: ''It reminds me of the emperor's clothes.
If it does turn out that there are organisms on Mars, people will say
'couldn't these people see?'-''
    But there is at least one area of agreement among all those involved
in the Viking mission. As Rich puts it, ''Scientists are not
unanimous about the interpretation of the results - we disagree on
details - but we are all in agreement that we have to go back and do
a more comprehensive set of tests.
    ''If we proved that there was life there, it would be one of the
great cultural events of this age. The scientific fallout, of course,
would be considerable. If we found another biological system on
another planetary body, my God, there are an infinite number of
questions we could ask. But perhaps the most important thing is that
whenever we address cosmic questions like this, all of a sudden we
see much more clearly that we - Homo sapiens - really are all one.''
    END
    
nyt-08-02-83 0533edt
**********

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 83 9:32:30-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-8 on Pad

STS-8 was rolled to pad 39A today, leaving the VAB shortly
after midnight, and arriving about seven hours later.  Liftoff
is scheduled for 30 August, between 0215 and 0249 EDT.  The
narrow launch window is due to the need for the ejection of
an Indian communications satellite to be in a precise place
over India at the right time.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 83 6:39:16-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!gummo!whuxlb!floyd!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: s.e.t.i

 perhaps planetary civilisations only emit radio communications
 for a brief developing stage in their history. we seem to be
 moving more toward tight-beam communications, cables, optical
 fibres etc. even radar may be replaced by laser systems so in a few 
 generations earth may become radio-quiet once again.
 
 douglas adams writes a good story but are dolphins really as
 intelligent as he/l.niven et.al. would like to think?

dgd

...!vax135!ukc!dgd

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #175    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 175

Today's Topics:
			   Re:  Space station?
				 Roll out
			      Ion thrusters
			      Life on Mars? 
			       Re: Roll out
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 83 17:12:47-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxl!braddy @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re:  Space station?
In-Reply-To: Article <1402@shark.UUCP>

	Yeah!
	What *would* it take to direct (even some) of our energy and $
	into space stations for constructive purposes instead of
    yet another weapons system? The nuclear arms mess has
    gotten so out of hand that solving the problem means
    disposing of huge quantities of existing bombs, etc. No small job!
	If we'd to do something decisive about the lazers-in-space
	issue *before* they get them up there, maybe it would be
	an easier problem to solve.  Or have they already begun
	and the recent publicity is but a way to further their cause?

	David..			...houxl!braddy

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 83 22:02:43-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!philipl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Roll out
In-Reply-To: Article alice.2090

Does anyone know why they rolled it out at night?  (I mean, just because the
launch is at night doesn't seem to be a good enough reason... They're not on
countdown yet!)
Philip Lantz
tekmdp!bronze!philipl

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 1983 18:17:14-EDT
From: york@scrc-vixen
To: space@mc
Subject: Ion thrusters

>From a Hughes Aircraft ad in the July issue of Signal magazine:

"The electronic rocket engine is ready to be tested aboard a satellite
to see how well it functions in the company of other space hardware.
Hughes has delivered two engines, called murcury ion thrusters, for
installation on a U.S. Air Force research satellite.  The goal of the
flight test is to qualify the system in space for performing such
auxiliary propulsion functions as stationkeeping, attitude control, and
orbit maneuvering of spacecraft.  The system is designed to replace
traditional chemical and gas propulsion systems, saving hundreds of
pounds of weight.  In operation, the thrusters are powered by the
satellite's solar cells, which convert sunlight into electricity."

Does anyone have more information on the current state of ion propulsion
technology?  Is interplanetary maneuvering (for small payloads)
feasable?

------------------------------

Date: 4 August 1983 03:45 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Life on Mars? 
To: RSF @ SU-AI, HPM @ SU-AI
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

With very small amounts of bacteria in a very hostile environment, a
reasonable experiment would seem to be make a "petri dish" growth
medium and put some Martian dirt in it and see if stuff grows
exponentially in the medium; but make sure the medium is similar
enough to Martian conditions not to overwealm and kill the lifeforms.
I assume the experiments on Viking 1&2 were so Earthlike as to deluge
the bacteria with water and food and perhaps break their cell walls or
something like that; remember the original bacteria on Earth found
free oxygen to be horribly toxic; only later was oxygen-resistance
developed, and even now some bacteria are killed by Oxygen. Perhaps
Martian bacteria are killed by free water or by just about any normal
chemical at much higher than natural Martian vapor pressures? Perhaps
Martian bacteria are optimized to admit chemicals directly from the
thin atmosphere with virtually no resistance/protection, thus
affording maximum efficiency of metabolism under low-vapor-pressure
environments; any bacteria that resists penetration by water or gasses
would have too low a resperation efficiency to survive?

So let's send another Viking but (1) do a range of petri-dish
experiments with varying amounts of water etc., (2) scrape off some of
that green stuff to get a good start.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 83 7:54:43-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Roll out
In-Reply-To: Article <677@bronze.UUCP>

The main reason is that this is storm season in Flordia, and
the afternoons are frequented by thunder and lightning storms.
By rolling it out at night, technicians can have it bolted down
and secured by the beginning of the afternoon.  On that subject,
NASA was asked what they would do if a hurricane hit the KSC area.
The reply was that the storm would have to be ''imminently upon
them ... with 70 mph winds'' before a decision to unbolt the
orbiter assembly and move it back to the VAB would be made.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #176    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 176

Today's Topics:
			 Ion thrusters -- Hughes
			   STS-8 launch window
			       SEM to Mars?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 August 1983 12:43 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Ion thrusters -- Hughes
To: york @ SCRC-VIXEN
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Hey, that's a good start, using an ion rocket for attitude control
etc. After it's proven its abilities for that sort of near-Earth stuff
it can be enlarged (more reaction mass, better guidance) for use as a
main engine for long interplanetary trips. I'm glad to hear they've
been working on it and are ready to give it a try. I wonder how soon
it can be flown?

If anybody gets more info on this, please pass it along.

------------------------------

Date: 04 Aug 83  1021 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: STS-8 launch window
To:   space@MIT-MC

	I'm confused as to exactly why the shuttle needs to be launched
within a precise launch window so that a communications satellite can be
released over India "at the correct place and time". Since KSC is in a
fixed position relative to the intended final position of the satellite
(in geostationary orbit), it will also presumably be in a fixed position
relative to the point of release (in LEO). So why then can STS-8 be launched
only within a certain narrow window at night?
	Presumably there are other, time-dependent factors involved, but
what would these be?

	Ross.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 83 19:26:13 PDT (Thursday)
From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: SEM to Mars?
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Does anybody know how compact we could make a Scanning Electron
Microscope, and what its power requirements might be?  Landing an SEM on
Mars ought to answer the life question once and for all.

--Bruce

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #177    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 177

Today's Topics:
			     Electric rockets
			   STS Launch windows 
				Ion drive
			  Launch Dress Rehearsal
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Friday, 5 August 1983 10:15:57 EDT
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: space@mc
Subject: Electric rockets
Message-ID: <1983.8.5.14.4.2.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

There is another type of electric rocket (besides ion) which has
been used for attitude stabilization.  It involves a block of teflon
and an electrical spark.  The spark vaporizes a bit of teflon, which
then goes flying out the nozzle.  AW&ST carried an article on it --
what, several moons ago?  In actual use on a spacecraft, the things
were fired several times a second over some years.  Very low thrust,
but not much is needed for this application.

Incidentally, the latest AW&ST (that I have seen) has a picture
of the meteroid hit on Challenger's windshield which forced the
glass to be replaced.

------------------------------

Date: 05 Aug 83  1007 PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW@S1-A>
Subject: STS Launch windows 
To:   space@MIT-MC, rsf@SU-AI    

One major factor is that NASA always tries to deploy a satellite in
full daylight.  That, plus a minimum fuel boost to the right slot in
geosynch and a (usually futile, I suspect) try at getting the deployment
to happen when the shuttle can talk to the ground (not very often, just yet)
add up to a fairly small set of launch windows.  --Tom

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 83 12:15:59 PDT
From: gomez.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Ion drive
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Gomez.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has been working on mercury drive systems for
a long time. In fact, the (now defunct) Halley-Tempel 2 mission was going to
use ion drive for the cruise portions. I suggest you contact the Public Education
office at JPL for more info (213) 354-4321.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 83 7:26:02-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Launch Dress Rehearsal

NASA yesterday carried out a dress rehearsal of the launch
of STS-8, with all five astronauts participating.  The
simulated launch was cut short just 13 seconds before the
mock engine ignition when warning indicators showed that
explosive devices that would have cut the bolts holding
the SRB's to the pad would have failed.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #178    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 178

Today's Topics:
			       Re: Roll out
			 Space weapons on people
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 83 19:25:54-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxx!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Roll out
In-Reply-To: Article <677@bronze.UUCP>, <2092@alice.UUCP>

If a hurricane was "imminently upon" KSC, the shuttle wouldn't have
time to get back into the VAB before the 70-mph winds hit.  I'm
assuming that you would move STS back on the crawler transporter.
You COULD ignite the engines and get it back to the VAB much faster :-) !
	Roger Noe		...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 83 1:25:28-EDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space weapons on people
In-Reply-To: Article <854@pur-phy.UUCP>

Although it is obvious that any beam weapon could never be effective
as a weapon of destruction against a city, there are other implications
of high accuracy weapons from space.

Perhaps someday we'll be able to aim a laser or some form of death
ray at an individual on the ground.  What an interesting deterrent
this would become.  Hey Mr. Terrorist or Mr. Enemey leader.  Our
weapon kills YOU.  Not your cities.  Not your soldiers.  Not your
people.  You.
Sure, you can stay underground all the time.  Never see the light
of day again.  Be our prisoner in your own home.  If this is what
you want, then mess with us.  You can hide, but you can't run!

I prefer any idea in weapons that means precision.  This means
laser guided bombs and beam weapons.  These are weapons that can't
be used against people, only military targets and military leaders.
Anything that makes war more personal for the Generals and Presidents
involved is a step forward in weapons.  Let all the Generals of the
world kill themselves off.  As Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven would
say, "Think of it as Evolution In Action."
-- 
	Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #179    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 179

Today's Topics:
			    Re: s.e.t.i - (nf)
			 Space weapons on people
			   Re: Electric rockets
			   Re:  Space station?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 83 7:14:38-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: s.e.t.i - (nf)

Re: Radio emissions as a decades-long blip in E.T. civilizations

If we can assume that most technological civilizations go through
the same phases in communications (radio to optics), then this might
be a clue in itself.  By watching the skies for radio activity that
lasts only a few decades, we have a fair indication of a civilization
that is moving toward the ability to receive and send transmissions.

Some major objections to this argument:

	1 Would it be detectable against the background radio noise
	  present in the stellar locality?
	
	2 Don't some (non-sentient) objects out these have periodic
	  behavior of this sort (more noise, of a more deceptive kind)?

The argument that radio will become passe has some weight, but only for
those civilizations that have no interest in or little awareness of space.
(Laser technology will have to improve fantastically in order to match
radio achievements like the Deep Space Network.)  That's not to rule it out.
A very large cloud-covered planet with no moon might take a long time
discovering that their planet went around the sun rather than vice versa.
This might not be a real impediment to technological advancement--although
I see strong arguments to the contrary, given the pivotal role of astronomy
in the sciences of antiquity.

We might be thinking about how important it is to have a moon; or a planet
small enough that its size can be measured by the techniques of the early
Greek geometers; or having a neighboring planet far enough away, and with
moons far enough from *it* (i.e., a "jupiter"), that the finiteness of
light-speed can be measured by Galilean (?) techniques; or an orbit large
enough to make stellar parallax a reliable technique for determining at
least the orders of magnitude involved in stellar distances.  Astronomy
provided alarming evidence that counter-intuitive perceptions of the
universe, based on barely visible phenomena, might have some weight.
The persistence and insight of a pitifully small number of people had
a staggering impact on history.

Astronomy was, perhaps, the first real science; and optics had to be at
least empirically understood to get beyond a certain point.  It would be
a very lucky race to live in a planetary system where all these effects
were visible with their native optical equipment (i.e., "eyes".)  Good
clocks were also important, but this is a little easier.  Having materials
for the fabrication of lenses seems to be the crucial thing.

Without knowing much more than we do about the "average" planet out there,
it's going to be hard to come to an assessment of current SETI strategies.
The only major breakthrough I've seen is in paleobiology: some researchers
have begun to think that spontaneous protein synthesis was a lot less chancy
than they originally thought--it just seems to fall right out of the early
chemistry of our planet.  Perhaps this has bearing on the chances for life
elsewhere, and hence, the chances for intelligent life.

Another breakthrough is cryogenic circuits, which operate best at temperatures
near the background temperature of the universe.  Here at Berkeley, they
are making Josephson junction receivers which are *very* sensitive.  Perhaps
good "ears" can be made from these.

	Michael Turner
	ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner

------------------------------

Date: 8 August 1983 01:41 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Space weapons on people

Unfortunately a weapon that can kill a particular terrorist can also
be used to kill a particular dissident. Let's be careful.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 83 16:53:05-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Electric rockets

Speaking of electric rockets, AMSAT has come up with a similar rocket that
could be used on a future payload launched from a GAS can on the
shuttle.  The problem here is that you want an engine to boost the
payload into a longer lived orbit than 300 km, but to prove to the NASA
people at the same time that it is intrinsically safe to fly on a manned
vehicle.

The proposal is to fly a steam rocket.  Liquid water is directly preheated
with solar energy and fed to a thrust chamber where an electrically
powered heater turns it to steam.  Specific impulse is terrible (~140 sec)
but mass isn't a limitation; only a couple tens of kilograms of water
would be required for the job.

Of course it would be much easier and quicker to just carry two solid
rocket motors to perform a two-impulse Hohmann transfer to the higher
circular orbit, but just getting permission from NASA to deploy
something from the GAS can will be a major accomplishment.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 83 15:54:10-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-ivax!nmtvax!student @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re:  Space station?

The main way of the space stations "killing" ICBM's is by frying
the crap out of the electronic circuits disabling its ability to
detonate.

Very few cities are so dependent on IC chips.

Sincerely;
Greg Hennessy
..ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!student

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #180    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 180

Today's Topics:
			 WORLD SPACCE FOUNDATION
		       Re: Space weapons on people
			     Cuban astronaut?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  8 Aug 1983 1032-PDT
Subject: WORLD SPACCE FOUNDATION
From: TOM MCGUINNESS <TMCGUINNESS@USC-ISIE>
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
POSTAL-ADDRESS: TOM MCGUINNESS,SMC 2147,, NPS, MONTEREY,CA 93940
Phone: (Home) 408-899-1312 (NPS office) 408-646-2174/5 AV 878-2174/5

           Digging through some junk I found a flyer about two years old
form the world space foundation.  They talked about a solar sail project 
that they were working on in conjunction with University of Utah and
JPL.  A guy by the name of Stahle (sp?) is director.  Anybody know anything
about the project---or about the foundation?

                                               GRL

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 83 19:46:18 PDT (Monday)
From: Poskanzer.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Space weapons on people
To: REM@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA

	From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
	Unfortunately a weapon that can kill a particular terrorist can also
	be used to kill a particular dissident. Let's be careful.

I don't think we have to worry about this.  The only reason for using a
space weapon to kill a particular person is that conventional
assassination techniques wouldn't work.  The CIA allegedly tried many
times to kill Castro, and of course they never succeeded.  A
"finger-of-god" type weapon would do the trick.  On the other hand, if
the USSR wanted to assassinate say Scharansky or Solzenitzin (sorry,
spelling is not hereditary), they would have to be extremely stupid to
use a space weapon.

Now, I'm not saying that it would be good to give the CIA the means to
assassinate Castro - one man's terrorist is another man's Libertador -
but we certainly do not have to worry about space weapons being used on
the little guy.
---
Jef

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 83 8:48:55-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: npois!hogpc!houti!chips1 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Cuban astronaut?


	Someone submitted an article a couple days
ago saying that a Cuban was the first black to venture
into space.  I would like some additional background
information about the astronaut, such as:

	1.  When did he make the flight?

	2.  What was his name?

	3.  How old was he?
	
	etc.


		Harry Bims
		ATTIS - Holmdel, NJ
		houti!chips1

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Aug-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #181    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 181

Today's Topics:
		       Re: WORLD SPACCE FOUNDATION
			 SPACE Digest V3 #180    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 83 10:02:57 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: WORLD SPACCE FOUNDATION
In-reply-to: TOM MCGUINNESS's message of 8 Aug 1983 1032-PDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

I was impressed by the talks I have heard by the World Space Foundation 
president, and now they get my yearly dues.  A small size sail was 
fabricated and deployed, a full size is being made.  The second project 
the WSF is into is near-earth asteroid investigation.  They are 
supplementing a project already started by astronomer Eleanor Helin in 
this area.  Good candidate asteroids for spacecraft visits have been 
found.  They will be glad to send you more information if you write 
them at PO Box Y, South Pasadena, CA 91030.

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1983  17:54 EDT
Message-ID: <[MIT-OZ].MINSKY. 9-Aug-83 17:54:29>
From: MINSKY@MIT-OZ
To:   Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Cc:   SPACE@MIT-MC
Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #180    
In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Aug 1983  06:03-EDT from Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>

As for lasering people from space, it is ny impression that the
current vague proposals for missile destroying space-based beam
weapons depend on exploding small nuclear devices to excite the
lasers.  Such weapons are expensive and non-reusable, and can't be
used frivolously, since such uses would start wars.  I suppose,
though, that there are other proposals around by now.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #182    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 182

Today's Topics:
		     micrometeoroid impact on shuttle
			      Vegan Colonies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 83 6:36:27-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: micrometeoroid impact on shuttle

 regarding message from david smith about a meteoroid impact
 on a shuttle window:
 i have not yet seen av.week and sp. tech. (megadeath weekly!) article
 so i assume the impact was fairly large (1mm?). spacecraft windows
 such as those from skylab/apollo are very useful for recording micro-
 particle hypervelocity impacts and in some cases they retain material
 from the incident particles. does anybody know where the window has
 ended up?

...!vax135!ukc!dgd

------------------------------

Date:     10 Aug 83 18:56-EST (Wed)
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@UDel-Relay>
Return-Path: <gutfreund%umass-cs%UMASS-CS@UDel-Relay>
Subject:  Vegan Colonies
To: space@mit-mc, sf-lovers@rutgers
Via:  UMASS-CS; 10 Aug 83 19:08-EDT


			VEGAN COLONIES DISCOVERED

Well, not exactly. Nevertheless the front page of today's NYT was almost
as surprizing. Especially for someone like me who has been openly sceptical
of the numerology people have been using to come up with figures for the
number of planets in the galaxy. Now there is something other than fluff
to base such guesses.

Today it was announced that the IRAS (Infrared Orbiting Telescope) has
discoverd some sort of accretion sphere of cold matter circling VEGA.
The cold matter is of undetermined size, but certainly larger than dust.
(It could not have stayed in orbit) While it could have planet sized 
objects, most astronomers believe that at the least, they have discovered
a proto solar system.

Vega (Alpha/Lyra) is approximately 26 light years from where I currently
sitting. It is estimated to be only 1 billion years old, and twice as
bright as old SOL. The matter extends for at least 80 AU from Vega
(Pluto is 40 AU from the Sun).

					- Steven Gutfreund
					  Gutfreund.umass@udel-relay

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #183    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 183

Today's Topics:
		      Solar system found around star
			      Vega planets  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 83 13:31:03-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!gsw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Solar system found around star

Seen on lunch-time television news today: a solar system has been
found around Vega. I think they said the system is still being
formed - Vega is a much younger star than ours. I therefor assume
that no planets have been detected. Is this the first time dust
has been found around a star, or what?

Any more details anyone?

	Gordon Watson
	AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel, Room IJ314a

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 83  2217 PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: Vega planets  
To:   space@MIT-MC

n085  1721  09 Aug 83
AM-PLANET
Evidence of Infant Planetary System Circling Nearby Star
By WALTER SULLIVAN
c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - The possibility that an infant planetary system is
circling a nearby star has been raised by new evidence from an
orbiting observatory.
    The Infra Red Astronomy Satellite launched last January has
discovered that the star Vega is surrounded by a giant disk or shell
of material.
    The Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of
Technology described the discovery Tuesday as the first direct
evidence of solid objects orbiting a star other than the sun.
    The sizes of objects within the cloud could be anywhere from those
of buckshot to full-fledged planets. According to the jet propulsion
laboratory the objects must be larger than dust grains, which long
since would have been removed from orbit.
    The discovery provides, the laboratory said, ''the first scientific
opportunity to study what may be an early solar system accreting from
stellar debris'' in the same manner as the sun and planets of this
system.
    Vega is relatively near and is the third brightest star in the sky.
It is currently prominent in the ''summer triangle'' of Vega, Deneb
and Altair and in the northeast can be seen almost directly overhead
at this season.
    Vega is thought to be less than a billion years old - less than a
quarter the age of the sun and its family of planets. It is believed
that the solar system, in its infancy, was also a cloud of dust, gas
and meteoritic fragments that formed into a disc and then into
objects as large as moons and, finally, planets.
    Vega is twice the size of the sun and 60 times as luminous. It is 26
light years away - the distance traveled by light in that length of
time. The nearest star is 4.3 light years distant.
    The cloud of matter around Vega extends 80 astronomical units from
the star. One astronomical unit is the distance of the earth from the
sun. Pluto, the outermost planet, is almost 40 astronomical units
from the sun, so the cloud (or disk) is somewhat larger than the
region inhabited by the planets of the solar system.
    The discovery was serendipitous. Operators of the satellite, which
is controlled from the Appleton-Rutherford Laboratory in Chilton,
England, aimed IRAS at Vega to test the sensitivity of its detectors,
since that star is often used for such calibration. It was found that
the star was enveloped in an enormous cloud, ring or shell of
material.
    The discovery was made by Dr. H.H. Aumann of the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory and Fred Gillett of the Kitt Peak National Observatory
near Tucson, Arizona. The satellite, a joint venture of Britain, the
Netherlands and the United States, has already discovered a number of
comets and other phenomena most readily detected at the infrared
wavelengths emitted by relatively cool objects.
    The cloud around Vega is estimated to be at about minus 300 degrees
Fahrenheit, which is similar to the temperature of Saturn's rings.
    It is not possible to determine the composition of the material in
the cloud nor how much of it there is, the statement added.
    While this is the first direct evidence suggesting another planetary
system, there has been speculation in the past about the possibility
that such systems exist.
    It has been hypothesized, for instance, that some stars appeared to
fly a winding path through space because of the gravitational
influence of unseen planets. Most often discussed among these stars
is the small, faint red star discovered in 19l6 by Edward E. Barnard
and known as Barnard's star. It is only six light years away.
Evidence for such perturbations has never been strong enough to
convince the astronomical community that planets were the cause.
    Clouds of dust and gas are also observed in various parts of the sky
and are thought to mark where new stars and possibly planets are
forming. But the evidence was indirect. Radio emissions from such
clouds indicate they are rich in molecules that could provide
starting materials for the evolution of living organisms.
    But this evidence suggests matter much less substantial than that
reported Tuesday.
    
nyt-08-09-83 2013edt
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #184    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 184

Today's Topics:
			      Space Station
		    Re: Solar system found around star
		 Intelligent life is not present on Earth
			2nd Solar System Found????
			      Laser Weapons
		      There is only one solar system
			 Other Planetary Systems
		 AM-Focus-Microwave Weapons, Bjt,780    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 83 14:13:33-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!clyde!crc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space Station

The ussr has a space station. At this moment it is in orbit and operation and
there is a crew on it.
They have had a series of these for several years.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 83 8:34:39-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Solar system found around star
In-Reply-To: Article <353@hou5f.UUCP>

It is *NOT* dust.  Scientists were very deliberate to point
out that they KNOW the particles are not dust.  (1) Dust would
have blown away when Vega ignited and (2) the infrared telescope
wouldn't have seen the dust.  Although they do not know howbig
the particles are, they do know they are at least as big
as ''buckshot.''

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 83 12:34:06-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!orca!davidl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Intelligent life is not present on Earth

Heard last night on the TV (channel 12 in Portland, OR) in reference to the
recent discovery by the IRAS satellite of what is very likely a solar system in
the process of forming around Vega:
	
	"Astrologists (sic) have known about the star Veega (sic) for 
	thousands of years...  ... discovered by the satellite IRIS (sic) ...
	If this is true, astronomers will have to re-write their textbooks."

The film reporter consistently pronounced the name of the star with a long E
and referred to the discovering satellite as IRIS.  Once the film piece was
over, the local anchorpersons went on to say that what with Star Trek and all 
it was a wonder they hadn't discovered this before...  If this is the sort of
stuff we're broadcasting to the stars, no wonder they haven't replied!

  -- David D. Levine   (...decvax!tektronix!tekecs!davidl)      [UUCP]
                       (...tekecs!davidl.tektronix@rand-relay)  [ARPA]

(We must drive ignorance about science from the four corners of the Earth!)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 83 8:39:21-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: 2nd Solar System Found????

This is reprinted from The Chicago Tribune of August 10, 1983

	Earth finds a new neighbor
	Scientific snoops believe it's a 2d solar system

>From Chicago Tribune Wires

     Pasadena, Calif. -- Astronomers using an infrared satellite telescope
have found the first direct evidence that there may be another solar
system in the Milky Way galaxy, scientists announced Tuesday.
     Don Bane of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory said the Infrared
Astronomical Satellite, known as IRAS, found a shell or ring of large
particles around Vega, the third brightest star in the sky.
    "The material could be a solar system at a different stage of
development from our own," Bane said. "Because of Vega's relative
youth [less than 1 billion years compared with the Sun's 4.6 bilion
years], the material around it cannot have reached the same stage of
evolution as our solar system."
     "The discovery, however, does provide the first direct evidence
that solid objects of substantial size exist around a star other than
the Sun."
     On a scale of 1 to 10, Bane added, the discovery is "an 8 or a
9."
     Vega is close to Earth in relation to other stars.  It is twice
the size of the Sun and 60 times as luminous.  It is 26 light-years
from Earth, the distance traveled by light in that length of time.
The nearest star is 4.3 light-years away.
     IRAS, which measures the amount of infrared waves, or heat
energy, of objects in space, was launched in January as an effort by
the United States, Britain and the Netherlands.  Its data is received
by a tracking center at Rutherford Appleton Laboratories in Chilton,
England.
     H. H. Aumann of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Fred Gillett of
Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona were studying Vega as a
source for calibrating the telescope on the satellite when they found
that the star was much brighter and larger in infrared waves than
expected from IRAS observations of similar stars.
     The scientists determined that the radiation was coming from an
extended region around Vega stretching 7.4 billion miles out from the
star.  That would make its solar system twice the diameter of Earth's.
     The material is 300 degrees below zero, about the same
temperature as particles in the innermost rings of Saturn.
     Because smaller material would have fallen back into the star,
the scientists believe, the particles circling Vega could range from
the size of buckshot to the size of a planet.
     The particles probably were left from Vega's formation and may
resemble objects found in Earth's solar system such as asteroids,
meteorites and other debris, the scientists said.
     "The discovery is the first opportunity to study what may be an
early solar system [forming] from stellar debris, as our solar system
is believed to have formed," Bane said.
End of Story


What an exciting development!!!

Allen England at BTL Naperville, Illinois
ihnp4!ihuxb!alle

------------------------------

Date:     11 Aug 83 19:55-EST (Thu)
From: Charles Weems <weems%umass-cs@UDel-Relay>
Return-Path: <weems%umass-cs%UMASS-CS@UDel-Relay>
Subject:  Laser Weapons
To: space@mit-mc
Via:  UMASS-CS; 12 Aug 83 9:07-EDT

From Science News, August 6, 1983:

'Major milestone' in lazer weapons tests
----------------------------------------

    In the first successful tests of its kind, an airborne laser recently
"defeated" missiles launched at it from another aircraft.  The U.S. Air
Force tests, announced July 25, marked completion of a series of experiments
involving the Airborne Laser Laboratory.  This flying test station, which
the Air Force stresses is highly experimental and not a prototype weapon 
system, disabled five AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air heat-seeking missiles,
causing them to veer off target and eventually crash-land.

    The challenge was to target and track an incoming missile precisely so
that the infrared (carbon dioxide gas) laser could continuously illuminate
one point on the missile's exterior long enough to burn through and destroy
its sensitive guidance components inside.  Initial trials two years ago
ended in failure.  Even this time, the Airborne Laser Laboratory's first
eight attempts were unsuccessful.  Explains Major Sam Giammo of the Air
Force Systems Command, "We'd fire one [Sidewinder], fine tune the equipment
a little bit, then fire another."  This was over a period of two weeks at the
end of May.  "But once we got the equipment calibrated," he said, "we were
five for five."

    The Air Force is calling the achievement "a major milestone" in its
high energy laser program.  It is one of the most visible advances in
research by the Department of Defense (DOD) on directed-energy weaponry.
Although this particular effort began long before DOD outlined its Space
Laser Program Plan last year, Giammo acknowledged the technology 
demonstrated in these tests would apply to other DOD laser programs.

    Over the past year, DOD has expressed growing interest in laser weapons --
particularly for defensive purposes; for use against incoming enemy missiles
and for protection of important data-gathering satellites in space.
Describing his agency's new posture before the Senate subcommittee on
strategic and theater nuclear forces earlier this year, Undersecretary for
Directed Energy Weapons Major General Donald Lamberson said DOD currently
expects to spend $900 million for research on space lasers during the next
five years, prior to beginning extensive demonstrations in orbit.  Roughly
$600 million will go for programs to investigate the technical feasability
and cost effectiveness of using lasers in space.  Three programs directed
by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) -- ALPHA, LODE
and TALON GOLD -- will dominate these efforts.

    Lamberson says ALPHA is investigating the prospects for high-powered
mid-infrared-wavelength devices, though some shorter wavelength laser
systems are being looked at too.  LODE is examining the feasability of
producing very large, precision mirrors to direct laser beams at their
targets.  It is also focusing on the difficulties of directing these beams
at high brightness levels.  TALON GOLD is concentrating on problems 
associated with locking a laser beam onto a moving target from space --
a target that will likely be moving at five or more times faster than the
Sidewinders encountered in the recent Air Force tests.

    The Army's role in the Space Laser Program is more modest.  Focusing
on ballistic-missile defense, it is chiefly investigating the extent to
which missiles can be "hardened" (protected) against laser radiation.  The
Army is also concentrating on short-wavelength lasers, the type expected
to prove most useful in space operations.  For its part, the Air Force is
studying the hardening of aircraft, satellites and other potential targets
for their survival under an attack by enemy weapons, including lasers.

    Responding to a growing public concern over further militarization of
space, DARPA Director Robert Cooper told the Congress on March 23 of this
year, "We are conducting research and planning related to space weaponry,
but I emphasize that no commitment has been made to acquire space-based
weapons.  And we will proceed only if our national security is so
threatened."                                            --- J. Raloff


Chip Weems

------------------------------

Date: Fri 12 Aug 83 12:26:31-PDT
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: There is only one solar system
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

I happened to check my nearby dictionary, and just as I suspected. The
``solar'' system is defined as ``The sun with the group of celestial bodies
that are held by its attraction and revolve around it''. I.e. SOL,
our sun, is built into the definition -- hence, Vega doesn't have
a ``solar system'', but a ``stellar system''.


Of course---there is one other definition of ``solar system'', namely
a collection of solar panels to heat a home... :-)
-------

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 1983 1456-PDT
From: METH at USC-ISI
Subject: Other Planetary Systems
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC
cc:   METH at USC-ISI

     The  2.4 meter diameter NASA Space Telescope, 
to  be placed in a 500 km orbit by the Shuttle  in 
1986, and left there for at least 5 years, will be 
able  to measure a Jupiter-size planet orbiting  a 
Sun-size   star  at  a  distance  of   150   light 
years...Stand by...

--Sheldon Meth
-------

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 83  1636 PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: AM-Focus-Microwave Weapons, Bjt,780    
To:   space@MIT-MC

a209  1110  12 Aug 83
TODAY'S FOCUS: Increasing Research On Microwave Beam Weapons
By BARTON REPPERT
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States is quietly stepping up research
on microwave beam weapons, which some American specialists say could
pose a significant arms-proliferation problem in the future.
    According to Pentagon officials, scientists at military laboratories
and defense experts on Capitol Hill, the U.S. effort has been spurred
partly by concern over an apparent Soviet lead in several areas of
high-power microwave technology.
    Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger alluded briefly to
microwave warfare in a detailed ''Soviet Military Power'' report
released last spring.
    Weinberger warned that signs of ''Soviet interest in radio-frequency
technologies, particularly the capability to develop very high
peak-power microwave generators, indicate that the Soviets intend to
develop such a weapon.''
    Since President Reagan's March 23 speech calling for development of
a defensive shield against nuclear missile attack, attention has
focused largely on possible use of visible-light lasers, particle
beams and exotic X-ray laser systems.
    But several microwave specialists say it is already a more
''mature'' technology and may be more quickly utilized in
directed-energy weapons.
    Microwave weapons are being considered for short-range tactical use
against planes, cruise missiles and infantry forces as well as
strategic defense.
    The microwave frequency spectrum is being used in radar, television,
long-distance telephone lines, satellite communications, microwave
ovens, medical therapy and various manufacturing processes.
    At high power levels, microwave radiation can burn out electronic
components of weapon systems. People exposed to such a beam can suffer
cataracts, third-degree skin burns, severe internal injuries,
unconsciousness or death.
    A report issued early this year by the Congressional Clearinghouse
on the Future expressed concern over the arms-control implications of
offensive microwave weapons, which it said could pack ''great
destructive power.''
    ''Since these weapons might be easier to develop than nuclear arms,
microwave devices could eventually be used by a large number of
nations if the technology is not controlled,'' said the report, based
on data compiled by House committees.
    John M. Bachkosky, a research and engineering official at the
Pentagon, said in a recent interview that the development of
high-power microwave weapons involved fewer technological hurdles than
either high-energy lasers or particle beams.
    ''From a hardware standpoint, we are probably much further along in
the area of microwave weaponry - or those components that could be
used to make up a microwave weapon - than in the other two areas,'' he
said.
    U.S. research efforts in the microwave area, Bachkosky said, are
aimed largely at studying the vulnerability of various electronic
components and weapon systems to high-intensity microwave bombardment.
    Bachkosky and other defense officials declined to give a dollar
figure on research, but said the microwave program still comprised
only a small fraction of the overall beam weapons budget, totaling
about $480 million for fiscal 1984.
    However, the effort represents a substanial growth from the 1970s,
officials said.
    Lt. Col. Richard L. Gullickson of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency noted that ''high-power microwave isn't really all
Buck Rogers-type weapons.''
    He cited examples including secure tactical communications systems,
imaging radars able to precisely identify spacecraft in high orbit
and special low tracking-angle radars to spot sea-skimming cruise
missiles.
    Gullickson said military commanders tend to be skeptical about the
value of microwave weapons because the beams would be more likely to
cause a ''soft kill'' - disabling of electronics - rather than
immediate destruction, as with an explosive warhead.
    Military facilities involved in high-power microwave research
include Harry Diamond Laboratories, a unit of the Army's Electronics
Research and Development Command; the Naval Research Laboratory, in
Washington; the Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, Va.; and the
Air Force Weapons Laboratory, at Kirtland Air Force Base near
Albuquerque, N.M.
    At Harry Diamond Laboratories, whose main complex is located in
Adelphi, Md., scientists said they are working with magnetrons and
other microwave-generating devices powered by very high-energy
relativistic electron beams.
    ''You're really at the forefront of science and technology here and
you have to struggle your way along, from day to day,'' physicist
Edward A. Brown said in a recent interview. But he added: ''We're
definitely making progress.''
    Brown said the laboratory was attempting to push microwave
technology ''considerably beyond'' the megawatt-level power outputs
obtainable with conventional radar equipment.
    Asked about the prospects for developing a tactical microwave weapon
system that can actually be deployed by the Army, Brown replied
cautiously: ''We're in the realm of the possible. We're not in the
realm of the probable, yet.''
    
ap-ny-08-12 1411EDT
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #185    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 185

Today's Topics:
			Second solar system found?
				  Veega
			   PM-Vega Halo,620   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 83 20:29:59-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!markp @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Second solar system found?

Really?  A second solar system?  I thought Sol had only nine planets.
I know it's nit-picking, but only Sol has a solar system.  Objects in
orbit about Vega could form a planetary system or a vegan system, but
never a solar system.


Mark Paulin
...tektronix!tekmdp!markp

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 13 August 1983 14:56:22 EDT
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: space@mc
cc: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!orca!davidl@ucb-vax
Subject: Veega
Message-ID: <1983.8.13.18.31.17.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

	...the star Veega (sic) ...
	The film reporter consistently pronounced the name of the
	star with a long E

A strange criticism.  Webster's Unabridged Dictionary gives one 
pronunciation:  with a long E.  Funk and Wagnall's Collegiate 
dictionary shows a long E in the first pronunciation, with a long A
for the secondary pronunciation.

As for astronomers rewriting their textbooks, I recall that little
gem in both CBS and INN reports.  It is careless wording, which
suggests that previous theories would have to be thrown out.
They should have just said that the discovery is important enough
to demand coverage in textbooks.

				***

The articles posted to the net give Vega's distance as 26 light years.
My 1980 Information Please Almanac gives it as 23 light years as of
January, 1979.  What's the true distance?  (I don't suppose it moved
that far in four years!)

				David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 83  1835 PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: PM-Vega Halo,620   
To:   space@MIT-MC

a059  0652  13 Aug 83
Vega's Halo Emerges As 'Super-Duper Asteroid Belt'
    LOS ANGELES (AP) - The vast ring of objects around the nearby star
Vega is more likely ''a super-duper asteroid belt'' than a new solar
system, some astronomers say.
    Stuart Weidenschilling, an astronomer with the Planetary Sciences
Institute of Tuscon, Ariz., said the strong infrared signal coming
from the region suggests an enormous number of small particles
radiating at the same frequency, comparable to the asteroid belt
within the Earth's solar system.
    The Earth's belt consists of more than 100,000 fragments believed to
be leftovers from the formation of the solar system. They range in
size from a few inches to several hundred miles in diameter.
    The 15-billion-mile shell of debris around Vega was discovered
earlier this week. The star is 150 trillion miles from Earth and the
third brightest star in our sky.
    The debris has yet to be glimpsed clearly, but it appears to be ''a
super-duper asteroid belt,'' Weidenschilling said. ''If there were
just a few big planet-sized objects there, they wouldn't radiate
(infrared energy) as strongly as a large number of small objects with
a greater total surface.''
    That means there may be much more material the size of buckshot,
popcorn and boulders surrounding Vega than revolve around the sun. If
there are any large bodies, they are probably few and far between.
    George W. Wetherill, a geophysicist with the Carnegie Institution of
Washington, agreed.
    ''There's got to be a lot of small stuff, debris, around Vega,'' he
said, ''and for that very reason, I'd be reluctant to call it a
'planetary' system. In fact, you could even argue the evidence is
against calling it a 'planetary' system because it is such small
stuff.''
    The scientists' comments were reported today in the Los Angeles
Times.
    Wetherill and Richard Greenberg, another Planetary Sciences
Institute astronomer, are skeptical that material could ever amount to
a planetary system. They said that if it has not happened by now, it
is not likely to happen in the future.
    Astronomers have been searching for decades for evidence of other
solar systems. Some argue that uncountable millions of planets must
exist in the universe and some should harbor extraterrestrial life.
None has yet been found.
    But the Vega particles sparked guarded excitement that scientists
might be on the trail of one.
    The particles were discovered by H.H. Aumann of the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in Pasadena and Fred Gillett of Arizona's Kitt Peak
National Observatory, at a tracking station at Chilton, England, for a
telescope rocketed into space in January to map the heavens.
    The infrared satellite measured a temperature of minus 300 degrees
Fahrenheit for the frigid matter circling Vega, in the consellation
Lyra, similar to that found within the inner rings of the planet
Saturn.
    Conway Snyder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory cautioned when the
discovery was announced that whether it represented a solar system
''was very much conjecture.'' He termed it an ''exciting'' find,
however.
    Despite the doubts over whether the matter is forming planets, the
spotting of the Vega particles is a shot in the arm for cosmogony, the
science that seeks to understand how astronomical structures such as
stars and stellar systems form.
    It offers scientists an example of how huge clouds of gas and dust
condense to build a central star and, perhaps, a retinue of planets.
    Until now, scientists have had only one subject to study: our solar
system.
    ''When you only have one of something you're trying to study, no
matter what the subject is, it's hard to do much,'' said Charles
Beichman, an astronomer at the Jet Propulsion lab. ''But when you find
two, there's probably a lot more out there just waiting to be
discovered.''
    
ap-ny-08-13 0953EDT
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Aug-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #186    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 186

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V3 #185    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 1983 0621-PDT
From: Henry W. Miller <Miller at SRI-NIC>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #185    
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: Miller at SRI-NIC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 14-Aug-83 0303-PDT

	As I recall, didn't they (the scientists) find evidence
of a gas giant (or two) around Barnard's star?  (This was a few
years back...)

-HWM
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Aug-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #187    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 187

Today's Topics:
				 Palomar
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     16 Aug 83 13:12-EST (Tue)
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@UDel-Relay>
Return-Path: <gutfreund%umass-cs%UMASS-CS@UDel-Relay>
Subject:  Palomar
To: space@mit-mc
Via:  UMASS-CS; 16 Aug 83 18:12-EDT

News Item:

San Diego decides to go ahead (against Palomar astronomers' wishes) and install
street lighting that will "significantly" degrade viewing at the Palomar
obserbatory. The town insists on using high pressure sodium lights that give
off a "peachy" color. They say that the low pressure sodium lights are yellow
looking and make people look like cadavers under their light. 

The astronomers say that the current mercury lights only emit along about
7 distinct frequencies, and that gives them room to work around. They would
perfer the City to go with the low pressure sodium lights that would only
emit on 1 frequency. The high pressure sodium lights emit across the entire
spectrum and present a wall to astronomers that they cannot work around.

[I may have gotton some of the numbers wrong here, perhaps someone with the
 NYT clipping service can provide the complete article]

				- Steven Gutfreund

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #188    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 188

Today's Topics:
			STS-8 Flight Time Extended
			     Name of the sun
			      TDRS update   
			     W5RRR and STS-8
			     US Space Station
			TDRS-1 Succesfully Tested
			2nd Solar System Found????
				  Veega
			   PM-Vega Halo,620   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 83 19:36:13-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-8 Flight Time Extended

NASA announced today that STS-8 will remain in orbit for six,
rather than five, days in order to have more time in which to
check out the TDRS-1 satellite.  The new landing time is 0025
EDT on 5 September.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 83 18:13:57-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!billp @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Name of the sun

	The discussion about a possible planetary system around Vega
brought up the question about names.  "Sun" is just a generic term that
applies to the star closest to the planet on which one stands.
	A few years back I spoke with someone who insisted that the name
of our star is "Copernicus".  Can anyone confirm or deny?  I have not heard
anyone use that name since.  The same person said that the name of our
galaxy is "Bruno Galaxy".

	Bill Pfeifer
{decvax,ucbvax,zehntel,uw-beaver} !tektronix!tekmdp!billp

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 83  1450 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: TDRS update   
To:   space@MIT-MC

a288  2053  15 Aug 83
AM-Satellite,320
Test of Communications Satellite Is Successful
    REDONDO BEACH, Calif. (AP) - A $100 million communications satellite
that will be used in space shuttle flights has successfully completed
its first operational test, relaying information from another
satellite to the Earth, a spokeswoman said Monday.
    The Tracking and Data Relay Satellite, known as TDRS-1, was able to
relay data from the earth resources satellite Landsat 4 to the TDRS
ground station in White Sands, N.M., said TRW Inc. spokeswoman Julie
Wright.
    ''For the first time in the history of scientific data-gathering
satellites, two unmanned orbiting satellites communicated with euch
other and a groansmission,'' Ms. Wright said.
    TDS-1 which was designed and built by Redondo Beach-based TRW, was
sent into the wrong orbit by a misfiring rocket following its launch
last April. It took scientists until June 29 to correct the error.
    The satellite is now in an orbit 22,236 miles above a fixed point on
Earth. Lower-orbiting satellites such as Landsat circle around about
175 to 300 miles above the Earth's surface and can therefore only be
tracked by ground stations over about 15 percent of their orbit.
    But because of its high orbit, TDRS-1 is able to receive and relay
signals from the lower-orbiting satellites over a much larger area.
    Ms. Wright said once a sister satellite, TDRS-2, is in place, the
two TDRS satellites will be able to track satellites over an estimated
85 percent of the Earth's surface. The second TDRS is scheduled for
launch next spring.
    Landsat 4 has been unable to communicate to ground stations at all
since one of its transmitter bands failed earlier this year, Ms.
Wright said.
    But using a different transmission band in the tests Friday and
Saturday, Landsat 4 was able to beam computerized images up to TDRS-1,
which in turn sent them down to White Sands.
    The tests were conducted from White Sands and NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., Ms. Wright said.
    
ap-ny-08-15 2354EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 83 17:49:36-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: W5RRR and STS-8

Does anyone know whether or not W5RRR is planning to rebroadcast
STS-8 ground-shuttle and shuttle-ground transmissions like they
have done in the past, and, if so, which frequencies they plan
to use?

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 83 9:45:21-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!vaxine!agr @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: US Space Station

>From Aviation Week and Space Technology, Aug. 15, 1983:

"Influential members of the White House Senior Interagency Group
(SIG) for space last week indicated the US should not undertake development
of a space station project.  The viewpoints did not represent a SIG
consensus but do illustrate the strong opposition that is developing to
counter NASA's station plan.  SIG members lining up against the station
included  the Office of Management and Budget, State Dept., the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and Defense Dept.  The movement of Defense from a neutral
position to one opposing a $7.5-9 billion development reflected oncern that
the station cost would drain federal development money in general and, more
specifically, funding to maintain shuttle program support.  SIG members
believed NASA has not made strong enough tradeoff studies about manned versus
unmanned space systems.  Favoring the station were NASA, Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency and the Commerce Dept.  It will now be up to President
Reagan to determine which side of the argument to support.  The SIG did not
evaluate the possible international and domestic political advantages of a
station development, and this is viewed by all participants as an important
factor President Reagan will consider in the debate."

If you want a space station this century write Reagan now!

Arnold Reinhold

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 83 7:25:20-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: TDRS-1 Succesfully Tested

TDRS-1 was successfully tested yesterday, as it relayed
signals from the Landsat 4 satellite to the TDRS ground
station.  The next major test of the satellite will come
on STS-8, when it will relay signals from the shuttle to
the ground.

------------------------------

Date: 17 August 1983 21:40 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: 2nd Solar System Found????
To: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Indeed "Sol" is the name of our star, also called the "Sun", and there
is only one Solar system, ours. It seems to me we could use the
generic term "planetary systems" and not confuse anyone. Anyone have a
way to get this suggestion to the major wire services?

------------------------------

Date: 17 August 1983 21:59 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Veega
To: David.Smith @ CMU-CS-IUS
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, decvax!tektronix!tekecs!orca!davidl @ UCB-VAX

    Date: Saturday, 13 August 1983 14:56:22 EDT
    From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
    The articles posted to the net give Vega's distance as 26 light years.
    My 1980 Information Please Almanac gives it as 23 light years as of
    January, 1979.

A chart of nearby (17 ly or closer) and bright (1st magnitude or
brighter) stars in Sky&Telescope (1982 Sept, page 254) lists Vega as
26.5 lightyears from here. I guess that means the almanac has an error
and "needs to be rewritten" <exaggeration>.

------------------------------

Date: 17 August 1983 22:04 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: PM-Vega Halo,620   
To: HPM @ SU-AI
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

That article refers to it as a "shell", i.e. a spherical surface. The
asteroid belt of our Sun is more like a ring. Was that a mistake in
terminology or has the Vegan system definitely been identified as a
shell instead of a ring?

Perhaps the shell is really a Dyson sphere, i.e. artificial. Do the
current observations refute that possibility? I would rather doubt a
shell of natural particles could remain after a billion years, while a
ring could. If it's really a shell that would seem to indicate
somebody's artificially maintaining it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #189    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 189

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Name of the sun
				Re: Veega
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #188
		      The name of our sun is "Sol".
		       STS-9 Frequencies Announced
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 83 18:18:00-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!esj @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name of the sun
In-Reply-To: Article <690@bronze.UUCP>

Since I have my bachelor's and graduate work in astronomy/astrophysics,
I feel compelled to relate the rules for using terms like "solar
system", "sun", etc.  The main rule is that there are no firm rules,
at least to the best of my recollection.  For example, when one 
says "stellar system" one can be referring to a binary or larger
system of stars going around a common center of gravity or
one can be talking about a whole galaxy.  The "Sun" is Sol but
to a person standing on say Vega X "the sun" is Vega.  It's
sort of like "South" meaning Dixie and "south" meaning the
the direction.  Take things in context and there won't be
problems.

If somebody wants to talk about planets of Vega, I would use the
term "planetary system" but mainly just because I'm a heliocentric
chauvinist.  The *context* in which I heard "stellar system" used always
implied stars, not planets.

Aside from the astronomer, the only Copernicus I know is a satellite.
Our galaxy has always been known to me as "The Milky Way" or "The
Galaxy" (being chauvinistic again).  Just be thankful it wasn't named
Ford.

Hey UTASTRO! Any comments?

Jeff "Given to demented ravings" Johnson
ihnp4!ihuxl!esj

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 18 August 1983 11:35:34 EDT
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@MIT-MC>
cc: SPACE@MIT-MC, decvax!tektronix!tekecs!orca!davidl@UCB-VAX
Subject: Re: Veega
Message-ID: <1983.8.18.15.35.6.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

Thank you for the correction.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Aug 83 15:01 PDT
From: MKrigel.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #188
In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 18 Aug 83 03:03 PDT"
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: MKrigel.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

The name of our sun is Sol, but the system name elludes me, Sol system?

Marc

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 83 11:57:16-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!markp @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: The name of our sun is "Sol".

Of course the name of our sun is "Sol", hence "solar system".

The name of our galaxy is "The Milky Way", or sometimes just "the Galaxy" with
a capital "G".


Mark Paulin
...tektronix!tekmdp!markp

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 83 0:06:45-EDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!iwu1c!jgpo @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9 Frequencies Announced

According to Westlink, the frequencies which Dr. Owen Garriott, W5LFL,
will use on the historic STS-9 Shuttle mission have been announced.

Dr. Garriott will transmit, using mode F3, on 145.550 MHz.
He will monitor frequencies between 144.910 MHz and 145.090 MHz, in
20 kHz steps.

According to an article in the September issue of 73 Magazine, Dr. Garriott
will announce which call area(s) he will listen for.  He will announce his
intentions for 60 seconds.  For the next 60 seconds, he will monitor his
preprogrammed frequencies between 144.910 and 145.090.  During the next
60 seconds, he will read back a list of the callsigns he has recognized.

It is recommended that earth stations limit their transmitter output
power to 10 watts.

Remember, that Dr. Garriott is in charge of the show and can easily bypass
any channel having excessive QRM caused by the high-power boys.

Use a good antenna; a 2M turnstile is recommended.  Do not use a highly
directional antenna; the Shuttle will be moving way too fast to keep it
aimed properly.

Westlink's Hollywood number, (213)-465-5550, will be devoted entirely to
STS-9 information starting September 1.  Be sure to listen to the W1AW
bulletins.  Good luck!


			73,
			John Opalko  KA9MNK

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #190    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 190

Today's Topics:
			  Shuttle and Philately
			     whats in a name
			   Re: Name of the sun
		    Re: The name of our sun is "Sol".
			      TRDS-1 Impact?
			   Re: Name of the sun
		  Re: 2nd Solar System Found???? - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 83 8:58:37-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!glinski @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle and Philately

     Does anyone know which shuttle flight will carry the
'space covers' issued by the U.S. Postal Service? 
(These are cacheted covers with the new $9.35 express mail stamp
affixed and canceled).  Orders must be received after the shuttle
lands.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 83 15:07:34-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!tiberio @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: whats in a name

I vote for Sol. It's what I always understood to be the name of our sun.

					Ty

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 83 11:29:44-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihldt!jhowe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name of the sun
In-Reply-To: Article <690@bronze.UUCP>, <494@ihuxl.UUCP>

I would tend to agree with Jeff Johnson.  Based on this, I looked in 
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary for support.  The following is an
excerpt from that entry.

sun
1 a: the luminous celestial around which the earth and other planets
revolve. . .
b: a celestial body like the sun

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 83 10:39:12-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: npois!hogpc!houti!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!kwmc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: The name of our sun is "Sol".
In-Reply-To: Article <2137@tekmdp.UUCP>

Our galaxy is NOT called the Milky Way.  The Milky Way refers to the band
of stars which are visible form the earth, when looking away from the
galactic center.  i.e. The Milky Way refers to a part of our galaxy in
a spiral arm.
			Ken Cochran        hou5d!kwmc
P.S.  does anybody disaggree ?

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 83 18:10:03-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!u1100a!u1100s!dad @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: TRDS-1 Impact?

Does anyone know whether having the single TDRS satellite (i.e. TDRS-1)
functioning during STS-8 will significantly increase the percentage of
time that there will be shuttle to ground communications?
Or do we have to wait until there is a full set of TRDS satellites before
they really begin to have an impact?

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 83 13:56:15-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      npois!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name of the sun
In-Reply-To: Article <690@bronze.UUCP>, <494@ihuxl.UUCP>

There's also a lunar crater named Copernicus....

					From the smart-aleck in the crowd,
					stan the leprechaun hacker
					ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 83 22:49:10-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: 2nd Solar System Found???? - (nf)

#R:ihuxb:-29500:uicsl:11100013:000:370
uicsl!preece    Aug 18 09:45:00 1983

My recollection is that the Bernard's Star data has since been
written off as observational anomalies, rather than gravitational,
and that the consensus is that there is no evidence to support
the claim of a planet there.

(I'm not an astronomer, and I'd love to know there's another
proved planet out there, so if somebody knows better than I,
please enlighten us...)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #191    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 191

Today's Topics:
		    I can name that star in 1 note...
		    Re: The name of our sun is "Sol".
		  Re: I can name that star in 1 note...
		    Re: The name of our sun is "Sol".
			 Space Shuttle Philately
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 83 13:38:10-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!wolit @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: I can name that star in 1 note...

Contrary to the apparent tide of public opinion, I think "Sol" is a
dumb name for our star.  First of all, no one seems to know whether
it's pronounced to rhyme with "doll" or with "dole."  Secondly,
"Sol" is a boy's name, which is gonna get a lot of girls ticked off.
(On the other hand, as a boy, I'm not sure I like a big ball of hot
gas automatically being named after one of us.)  Also, given the role
of our star in the development of our species -- it's either a
distant ancestor, if you believe in evolution, or our Creator, if your
a Sun worshipper (Judeo-Christo-Islamo types can flame to /dev/null) --
it seems a little informal to refer to it as just "Sol," rather than
"Honourable Sol," or even "Solomon."  Why can't we just go on
referring to it as "the sun" (or "the Sun," if you will)?  I mean,
going metric is tough enough without also having to relearn old sayings
like, "Sol rises in the east and sets in the west" and songs like,
"Here come Sol."  New Yawkers always refer to New York as "the city,"
even if they're in California at the time, and everyone knows what
they mean.  What are we risking by maintaining the status quo -- being
considered parochial by Alpha Centaurians?

I move that this discussion be continued on Vega, or at least on
net.misc, if at all.

	Jan Wolitzky, Bell Labs, Murray Hill

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 83 15:37:58-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: The name of our sun is "Sol".
In-Reply-To: Article <2137@tekmdp.UUCP>, <612@hou5d.UUCP>

The name of our galaxy is "The Milky Way".  The band of stars that
we see at night is The Milky Way seen edge on.

Allen England at Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
ihnp4!ihuxb!alle

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 83 17:45:19-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!bb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: I can name that star in 1 note...
In-Reply-To: Article <1820@rabbit.UUCP>

     I like the word 'Sol'.  It is Latin and it rhymes with dole.
     It has sort of a majesty about it, probably because I have
     never known anyone named Sol, so I associate it only with
     the Sun, which is just what it's called, not what its name is.

     It occurs to me that if boys might get mad about being named
     Sol, every living male has reason to get upset about being
     called Sun. [very bad, I know :-)]

     The Milky Way is a wonderful name for our galaxy.  I remember
     reading somewhere (perhaps in Science 78) about a star cluster
     or small galaxy discovered very close to the Milky Way.  
     The name proposed by the discoverers was 'Snickers'.
     Can anyone verify?

     b2  ...!ucbvax!lbl-csam!lanl-a!bb

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 83 11:56:21-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!dciem!ntt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: The name of our sun is "Sol".
In-Reply-To: Article <612@hou5d.UUCP>

Some authors use "Sol" (especially in science fiction, but then, they have
the most need), some use "the Sun", some use "the sun", some use "our sun"...
and similarly with "Milky Way", "our galaxy", etc.

In short, it is a matter of opinion.  But there is one group whose opinion
matters more, and that is the people who assign names to comets and the like.
The International Union of Astronomy, is it?  Now, if anybody knows the
proper name of the group and the usages that THEY prefer, tell us please.

Mark Brader, NTT Systems Inc., Toronto

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1983  16:29 EDT
Message-ID: <[MIT-OZ].MERMAN.20-Aug-83 16:29:10>
From: Dave Goodine <MERMAN@MIT-OZ>
To:   Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Subject: Space Shuttle Philately
In-reply-to: Msg of 20 Aug 1983  06:03-EDT from Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>



	STS-8 will be carrying the 250,000 comemorative postal covers
for the U.S. postal service "to commemorate NASA's 25th anniversary".
This, by the way, will be the first night launch of the space shuttle,
and possibly a night landing from the Edwards Air Force Base.


					Extracted from
					"Space '83"

					Dave Goodine.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Aug-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #192    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 192

Today's Topics:
		    Re: The name of our sun is "Sol".
			    Is the sun Jewish?
			 BC-CERAMICS-2takes-08-22
			      Glenn & space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 August 1983 21:46 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: The name of our sun is "Sol".
To: npois!hogpc!houti!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!kwmc @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I've always seen our galaxy called "the Milky Way Galaxy", and M31
called "the Andromeda Galaxy". Thus while "the Milky Way" might refer
just to what you see from the Earth, add the word "Galaxy" and it's
the usual name for our galaxy. Is there any other name for our galaxy
in common use other than local names such as "the Galaxy" or "our
galaxy" etc.? Is there any other name for M31?

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 83 20:04:38 PDT (Sunday)
From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Is the sun Jewish?
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

"Sol" isn't a bad name, but why not Mel, or Sid, or Mort, or...

--Bruce :-)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 83  2137 PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: BC-CERAMICS-2takes-08-22
To:   space@MIT-MC, arms-d@MIT-MC

n102  2020  21 Aug 83
    By Robert Cooke
    (c) 1983 Boston Globe (Independent Press Service)
    Propped against the wall in Jim Hannoosh's office is a dark gray
slab of sparkly material that represents tomorrow.
    ''That,'' Hannoosh said, pointing to the slab, ''is state of the
art'' in modern ceramics. It's made of silicon nitride, which,
through research, has been made into a 21st Century material so
strong, so heat-and-corrosion resistant it makes steel seem a
weakling.
    On Hannoosh's desk at the Norton Co. in Worcester, Mass., there's
also a handful of small ball bearings. These, too, are made of
silicon nitride, and they're capable of standing three times more
pressure and two times more heat than most steel bearings.
    Such products are just the beginning. In modern research
laboratories around the world, scientists have developing a new
family of exotic ceramics that are opening a new era of super-strong,
ultra-hard, heat-resistant materials for high technology.
    Other high technology ceramic materials include aluminum oxide,
zirconium oxide and silicon carbide, each of which has its own set of
useful properties.
    In time, these new ceramics are expected to replace rare and
expensive metals in many applications, especially where heat
resistance, hardness and durability are critical factors. In diesel
engines, for instance, or in gas turbines.
    Because of recent progress, and increasing demand for ultra-durable
materials, says Prof. G.B. Kenney, at MIT, high technology ceramics
have now reached a threshhold, ''a leverage point ... where you make
a major or quantum jump with a new materials technology, and a lot of
(other) new technologies open up.''
    Thus, observers expect high technology ceramics use to increase
dramatically in the electronics industry, in gas turbines, jet
engines, in automotive engines and elsewhere.
    As should be expected, the Japanese are out front in the race to
take command of this hot new technology. As reported by MIT
Professors H. Kent Bowen and Kenney, Japan's aggressive new emphasis
on ceramics ''represents a bold initiative to achieve technological
and market leadership'' in the field.
    They estimated the current worldwide market for high technology
ceramics is around $4.25 billion. Half of it is now being met by
Japanese companies, with sales of $2 billion in 1980.
    ''Fine ceramics (high performance ceramics) are expected to
significantly influence the future of electronics, machining
operations, automotive and utility power plants and processing and
manufacturing system automation.''
    In fact, say Bowen and Kenney, half of the high-technology ceramics
now marketed worldwide are made by the Japanese. And on top of that,
the Japanese government and industry have teamed to support an
ambitious, richly endowed research program that may make Japan
unbeatable in high performance ceramics.
    As Japan has pushed into the lead, they added, ''Great Britain, a
traditional leader in the development of ceramics, has lost its
advantage ... . The current challenge for ceramic industry leadership
comes from Japan, where ceramics production and technology are
flourishing.''
    Hannoosh, a scientist involved the Norton Co.'s expanding ceramics
research effort, added that the United States ''is actively competing
with them. In some areas we're behind. But in other areas we're
ahead.''
    And, he said, one should remember that ''the United States has been
the benchmark against which other work has been compared.''
    Recently, Hannoosh said, several U.S. agencies ''have begun
increasing funding in this area, in part because of the increased
spending in Japan and Europe, but also because this is recognized as
a technology that the United States needs. And we do have the people,
the materials science techniques and the resources to make it work.''
    In addition, he said, ''Norton considers itself a leader in this
field of high performance ceramics, and we plan to be a key player in
the future in this area.''
    Looking ahead, Hannoosh said ''there are going to be applications
for these materials where they haven't been used before,'' since
their properties suit them for use in high performance machinery as
bearings, as blades, bushings and other critical parts. This is
especially true, he said, for the ''hot'' zones in new machinery
where components must stand up reliably to extremes of heat and
pressure.
    MORE
    
nyt-08-21-83 2310edt
***************

n104  2041  21 Aug 83
BC-CERAMICS-1stadd-08-22
    X X X HEAT AND PRESSURE.
    At present, many such parts - especially those made for use in
extra-hot environments - are made from expensive metals, the
so-called super-alloys. These alloys require large amounts of metals
such as cobalt and chromium, which are not abundant in the United
States.
    Ceramics, on the other hand, are made from common and plentiful
elements such as silicon, nitrogen, carbon and zirconium, which are
abundant.
    According to researchers, some of the emerging uses for the new
ceramics include:
    - The ceramic diesel engine, already built and being tested in
separate programs by the U.S. Army and Japanese industrial firms.
Ceramic engine parts are so heat-resistant they can operate at very
high temperatures. Thus cooling equipment can be minimized, or even
eliminated, savi ght. As a result of less weight and higher
''burn'' temperatures, fuel efficiency is boosted by as much as 50
percent.
    - Ceramic armor, made of boron carbide backed by Kevlar, is formed
into crashworthy and bullet-resistant seats for military helicopters.
A Norton Co. official, Richard Alliegro, said the seats provide
protection at 35 percent of the weight of comparable steel armor.
    - In energy production systems, ceramic turbine blades allow hotter,
more complete combustion. Researchers expect fuel savings of up to 15
percent.
    - Inclusion of high technology ceramics in metals, such as aluminum,
to increase stiffness without increasing weight. The military is
especially interested in such ''metal matrix'' materials for use in
helicopters, tanks, bridges and other applications where weight is
important.
    Ceramics, of course, are among the oldest materials used by humans.
The use of ceramics dates back thousands of years to the oldest clay
bowls, fashioned from mud and baked in the hot flames of a campfire.
    But these new ceramics are a far cry from the bowls and basins
thrown on a potter's wheel, very different indeed from the familiar
cups, saucers and toilet bowls that also are known as ceramics.
    Unfortunately, most ceramic materials, including some of the high
technology ceramics, share a common problem, brittleness, the
tendency to shatter.
    In other words, ceramic materials tend to be hard, and they can be
strong, but they're limited by not being very tough.
    Norton's vice president for high performance ceramics, Robert A.
Rowse, noted that ''The problem has been reliability. When they
(ceramic parts) fail, they fail catastrophically.''
    As a result, engineers designing machinery tend to avoid using
ceramics in rapidly rotating parts.
    ''So,'' Rowse said, research is ''aimed now at improving strength,
and to avoid catastrophic failure.''
    In looking at current research and development, Hannoosh said the
most exciting areas are:
    - Ceramic matrix composite materials, in which ceramic fibers are
embedded in a ceramic structures to supply toughness, overcoming the
difficult problem of brittleness.
    - Transformation-toughened materials, in which the interior
structure of a ceramic part is toughened by controlled application of
heat, similar to the heat-treating of metals.
    - Hot isostatic pressing, in which intricately shaped ceramic parts
can be toughened under special conditions in very high-pressure
furnaces.
    As for the ceramic diesel engine, the Cummins Engine Co., working
with the U.S. Army's Tank and Automotive Command, has developed a
five-ton truck powered by an uncooled engine that has ceramic-lined
combustion chambers.
    According to Robert Katz, chief of the ceramic research division of
AMMRAC (Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center) in Watertown,
on a 500-mile trip the truck achieved about 9 miles per gallon, a 50
percent improvement over a conventional diesel engine.
    Also, the Kyocera Corp., in Kyoto, Japan, has built an automobile
powered by an uncooled diesel engine, which is made substantially of
silicon nitride. Company officials estimate the fuel savings will be
close to 30 percent.
    END
    
nyt-08-21-83 2331edt
***************

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 83  2356 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: Glenn & space
To:   space@MIT-MC

a086  0852  19 Aug 83
PM-Glenn-Space,210
Candidate Calls For Expanded Space Program
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, is calling for an
expanded U.S. space program keyed to the orbiting of a permanently
manned space station.
    Glenn, a former astronaut who is now running for the Democratic
presidential nomination, also urged that the United States enter into
talks with the Soviet Union to prevent deployment of weapons in
space.
    ''A bold space program can produce large-scale benefits for the
American people in the form of new products, new services and
increased productivity,'' the senator said in outlining his proposals
for the next 25 years of space exploration.
    Glenn stressed that ''the key to cost-effective space operations by
2008 is a permanently manned space station in near-earth orbit.''
    His program also envisions development of unmanned space platforms
''capable of supporting large microwave reflectors and antennas, solar
energy collectors and radiators, and telescopes,'' according to a
statement released Thursday by Glenn's office.
    In addition, his program calls for stepped-up scientific efforts
geared to exploration of planets, asteroids and comets.
    On the issue of anti-satellite systems and other space weapons,
Glenn said he favors the use of space for ''passive defensive
measures'' such as satellites intended for reconnaissance, military
communications and verification of arms control treaties.
    But he contended that ''it would be in the interests of both the
U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to enter negotiations to reverse the trend
toward and to eliminate any weaponization of space.''
    
ap-ny-08-19 1154EDT
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #193    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 193

Today's Topics:
			    Extrasolar planets
			 Thanks for making my day
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 1983 10:22-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Extrasolar planets
Via:  Usc-Cse; 22 Aug 83 11:38:52

I've also heard that the Barnard's star data has been written off as
spurious.  A new interferometer is being built somewhere back east for
high precision astrometry.  The device should collect in a few hours
data that would have taken a year by previous techniques.  Accuracy is
a few milliarcseconds, good enough to detect Jupiter sized planets
around nearby stars.  The shuttle could orbit an interferometer
accurate to microarcseconds, which would allow the detection of earth
sized planets out to many light years, and Jovian planets out to great
distances.

 

------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 1983 1156-PDT
From: Wmartin@OFFICE-3 (Will Martin)
Subject: Thanks for making my day
To:   Space@MIT-MC

I just read the last 6 Space Digests in a group and am about to be
overcome by fits of giggling....

There was a delightful typo in #188 that squished "ground transmission"
into "groansmission". I would define "groansmission" as 1. A
guilt-inducing call or telegram from your sick mother, aunt, or
other relative; or 2. A military detail inducing much griping
amongst the participants.

As for the name of the sun, no one brought up reading MAD could
vote for anything but "Melvin".  Sol is OK, but "Melvin", now 
THAT'S got class...

(And "Bruno Galaxy" isn't far behind.  [I think I saw him
listed on a double bill at the local wrestling hall last week...])

Gibber, gibber, hee, hee, hee...
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Aug-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #194    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 194

Today's Topics:
			       Re: Snickers
			    distribution list
	       Re: SPACE Digest V3 #185 - Barnard's planet
		Re: There is only one solar system - (nf)
			     Re: TDRS update
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 83 8:44:17-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!djb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Snickers
In-Reply-To: Article <1820@rabbit.UUCP>, <739@lanl-a.UUCP>

Indeed, you are correct about "Snickers."  As I remember it was in
1978 that some astronomers discovered a collection of stars just outside
the confines of our galaxy.  Some studies and calculations confirmed that
it was a truly separate "cloud" very much like the Magellanic Clouds,
but considerably smaller.  After much deliberation, they named this new
member of our Local Group "Snickers" since "it is like the Milky Way, 
only peanuts."

And they say astronomers are a dull, humorless breed...

	David Bryant   Bell Labs   Columbus, OH   (614) 860-4516
	(cbosg!djb)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 1983 14:34:06 PDT
From:  <frank@ACC>
Subject: distribution list
To: space@MIT-MC

Folks,

Please add my name to your mailist

Thanks,

Frank Soos

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 83 15:08:36-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!genrad!security!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!darrelj @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #185 - Barnard's planet
In-Reply-To: Article <4198@sri-arpa.UUCP>

There is believed to be a gas giant planet (i.e. half of a binary star
system not big enough to ignite) around Barnard's star, but the evidence is
more circumstantial than for the ring around Vega.
The existence of the planet is deduced from a very slight, regular wobble in
the position of Barnard's star.  The amount of the wobble is barely above
the noise level (imposed by atmosphere mostly), so it's presence is based in
part on a long term Fourier analysis of it's position.  It also requires
great patience (Jupiter's period is 12 years) to detect.
Also, since it hasn't been observed directly, there is also the (slight)
chance it is some other exotic, massive object.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 83 5:33:03-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: There is only one solar system - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-415500:uiucuxc:12600008:000:69
uiucuxc!hamilton    Aug 21 18:52:00 1983

or, if we send a probe to Vega, will it need Vegan panels for power?

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 83 12:38:30-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!CSvax.cmh @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: TDRS update
In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.4284

Is this past failure of Landsat why Reagan wants to sell the system?
Chris Hoffmann.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #195    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 195

Today's Topics:
		  Re: I can name that star in 1 note...
			    Extrasolar planets
		  Re: 2nd solar system found???? - (nf)
			   Re: Name of the sun
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 83 0:07:33-EDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!hao!csu-cs!silver @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: I can name that star in 1 note...
In-Reply-To: Article lanl-a.739

Meanwhile, the "local group" (of galaxies) is floating  around out there
without even a semblance of a proper name.  Now's our chance to stick it
with something  pronounceable  (unlike Sol) and dignified  (unlike Milky
Way, which is TOTALLY  silly).  I propose we call it "Fred" (with a LONG
"e", of course).  Comments to /dev/vega.   :~)

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 1983 8:53-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Extrasolar planets
Via:  Usc-Cse; 24 Aug 83 09:32:25

I've also heard that astronomers have detected something orbiting T
Tauri.  T Tauri was the first "T Tauri star" discovered.  It is
supposed to be a newly formed star with a very strong stellar wind.
The object detected has a mass 5-10 times that of Jupiter.  Since the
system isn't done forming,  astronomers aren't sure if the object will
become a star or just a very large planet.

 

------------------------------

Date:     24 August 1983 1708-mst
From:     Kevin B. Kenny    <Kenny.OSNI @ SYSTEM-M.PHOENIX.HONEYWELL>
Subject:  Re: 2nd solar system found???? - (nf)
To:       SPACE @ MIT-MC

I seem to recall that several years back someone found fairly conclusive
evidence for an object several times the mass of Jupiter (too big for
planet, too small for star) orbiting a nearby star (61 Cygni?).  Can
anyone refresh my memory about this?  Is this finding in debate along
with the putative planetary system about Barnard's Star?

/k**2 (Kevin Kenny) [Kenny.OSNI%PCO-MULTICS@CISL-Service-Multics
                       (host is also called MIT-DevMultics or just CISL,
                        depending on how up-to-date your host table is.)]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 83 21:54 PDT
From: Gloger.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Name of the sun
In-reply-to: "Bill Pfeifer's message of 15 Aug 83 18:13:57-PDT (Mon)"
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

Bill Pfeifer suggests that the name of our sun is "Copernicus," and the
name of our galaxy "Bruno Galaxy."  These are indeed the proper names
for those entities.

I believe the first person to suggest these names was Andrew Galambos,
an astrophysicist and social theorist.  His rationale is that, in
science, things are properly and usually named after their discoverers
or inventors or other primary contributors.  Copernicus is the first
person to correctly, permanently identify for all mankind the nature and
relative position of the sun; likewise, Giordano Bruno was the first to
identify that the visible stars, the visible components of our galaxy,
are suns like our own.  Who better to credit than these two men?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Aug-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #196    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 196

Today's Topics:
		     Query: American Space Foundation
			   Re: Name of the sun
				 Language
			   perigee, apogee    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 25 Aug 83 14:31:44-CDT
From: Art Flatau <CMP.FLATAU@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: Query: American Space Foundation
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

   I received a letter today from the American Space Foundation (signed
by Ed Gibson, one of the Skylab III astronauts) asking me to sign a
petition to congress to "Reaffirm America's serious commitment to space,
restore the American space program's budget and put America back in the
space race 100%".

  I'd like to know if anyone can tell me more about the American Space
Foundation (i.e. some history, what they've done and whatelse, if
anything they do besides lobby in congress).

Thanks,
Art
cmp.flatau@UTexas-20
-------

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 83 13:58 PDT (Thursday)
From: Manley.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Name of the sun
In-reply-to: Gloger.es message of Wed, 24 Aug 83 22:04 PDT
In-reply-to: "Bill Pfeifer's message of 15 Aug 83 18:13:57-PDT (Mon)"
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Manley.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA, Gloger.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

It is appropriate to name our galaxy after Giordano Bruno and our sun after
Copernicus, especially since Bruno was burned at the stake for holding these
views while Copernicus just barely escaped this fate by dying before his book
was published.

------------------------------

Date:     25 August 1983 1026-mst
From:     Kevin B. Kenny    <Kenny.OSNI @ SYSTEM-M.PHOENIX.HONEYWELL>
Subject:  Language
To:       Space-Enthusiasts @ MIT-MC

While attempting to explain why a belt would be stable and a shell
wouldn't be (in the discussion about objects around Vega), I used the
terms "aphelion" and "perihelion" for the points in an orbit furthest
from and closest to the primary.  My friend pointed out that since
"Helios" is _the_ Sun (i.e., _our_ sun), I should have rather said
"apastron" and "periastron".  That means we have the following set of
terms:

Earth: apogee, perigee.
Moon (i.e., _our_ moon): apolune, perilune (a solecism favoured by NASA)
                 -or-    apocynthion, pericynthion (correct but obscure)
                 -or-    aposeleneion, periseleneion (hardest to spell,
                                           but the clearest in meaning).
Sun (i.e., _our_ sun, Sol/Helios): aphelion, perihelion.
Stars in general: apastron, periastron.

I have also seen "apocythereion, pericythereion" (pronounced,
incidentally, with a hard "c") applied to Venus (correct, I suppose, but
extremely obscure).

Is there a good pair of terms to use for the apsides irrespective of the
identity of the primary?

/k**2  (Kenny.OSNI%PCO-Multics@CISL-Service-Multics)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 83  1655 PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@S1-A>
Subject: perigee, apogee    
To:   space@MIT-MC

I vote for apogee and perigee as generic terms for orbits around any
body.  There is a similar need for a generic term for "geology",
"geochemistry", "geography", "geophysics", etc.  The conversion to
generic form of the "geo" root is already well established for words
like "geometry" and "geodesic".

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #197    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 197

Today's Topics:
				Re: names
			      generic terms 
			 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #195
			     Stamps on STS-8
		Re: There is only one solar system - (nf)
		 Barry Poses Little or No Threat to STS-8
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sender: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Date: 26 Aug 83 10:31:22 EDT (Friday)
Subject: Re: names
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
From: Chris Heiny <Heiny.Henr@Parc-Maxc.ARPA>
cc: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Generic terms should be used whenever they will not cause confusion,
even though the excruciatingly literal translation or exact definition
does not fit.  Thus we should refer to what is called geometry on Earth
as geometry when we are on the Moon, Venus or Tau Ceti V, rather than
calling it selenometry, cytherometry or taucetipentometry.  If we
discover some situation on Tau Ceti V that distinguishes geometry there
from geometry on Earth (perhaps triangles on TC V have 42 sides), then
we would be justified in calling it taucetipentometry.

As to peri-whatever or apo-whatever: bizarre roots (like '-cythereion')
should only be used if it is not understood by most of the audience just
what it is that you are orbiting, and only if the root is going to be
understood by the audience. Maximum and minimum distance points are
features of all orbits, and the existence of them is not dependent on
the body orbited.  I prefer -gee for planet/asteroid/etc type bodies and
-helion for stars and suns.  Thus, if it is known that the mission to
Tau Ceti V is currently in orbit around Tau Ceti V, then one would say
'perigee' and 'apogee'.  If it is not immediately obvious, then you
should say 'perigee/apogee of its orbit about Tau Ceti V', or in some
other way make it clear that it is orbiting TC V.  Terms like
apotaucetifive or peritaucetifive should be avoided.

					Chris

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1983  12:50 EDT
Message-ID: <[MIT-OZ].CARLF.26-Aug-83 12:50:58>
From: CARLF@MIT-OZ
To:   space-enthusiasts@mit-mc
Subject: generic terms 

	I have seen the words "apopoint" and "peripoint" used to mean
the highest and lowest points of the orbit. This seems to be the most
common set of words. I have also seen "apoapsis" and "periapsis",
which I personally prefer, but which seems to be considerably less
common.

				-- carl

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Aug 83 10:14 PDT
Sender: MKrigel.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #195
In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 25 Aug 83 03:03 PDT"
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
from: MKrigel.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

I beg to inform you all that in this months Science Digest is a article
about the shape of our galaxy (4 arms now thought to exist, with crimped
edges, half the galaxy crimped 180 degrees from the other half, etc.,
etc); they call our galaxy the Milky Way.

Marc

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 1983 1221-PDT
Subject: Stamps on STS-8
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: katz@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Everyone,

You can get an Express Mail postal stamp and souvenir envelope, which
will fly on the space shuttle STS-8 by sending $15.35 to:

		Shuttle Flight Folder
		Philatelic Sales Div.
		Washington, DC  20265-9997

ORDERS MUST BE POSTMARKED AFTER THE SHUTTLE LANDS (now scheduled for
Sep 6).  THOSE POSTMARKED BEFORE WILL BE RETURNED UNOPENED.

So mail your orders in the hour after the shuttle lands (I suggest in
this case to use all 9 digits of the above zip).


				Alan

-------

------------------------------

Date: 26 August 1983 21:52 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: There is only one solar system - (nf)
To: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 22 Aug 83 5:33:03-PDT (Mon)
    From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton @ Ucb-Vax
    or, if we send a probe to Vega, will it need Vegan panels for power?
Indeed, "solar cells" etc. are misnomers, since the light shinging on
them can be an artificial source or another star instead of the Sun
(Sol). Let's all call them "light-to-electric tranducers" ok? "Look at
this new apartment building along Bayshore freeway, with
light-to-electric tranducers all along the roof."

I guess eventually we'll have to change "solar" to be something else,
just like we changed the names of our planets and the constellations
to no longer be references to Greek mythology.

<partly tongue in cheek in case you missed it>

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 83 18:03:12-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Barry Poses Little or No Threat to STS-8

NASA today said that tropical storm Barry should have no effect
at all on next week's scheduled launch of STS-8.  Preparations
are still well on or ahead of schedule for the 0215 EDT launch
on the 30th.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Aug-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #198    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 198

Today's Topics:
			       naming names
			    Extrasolar planets
		Dates for STS-9 and any others this fall??
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 1983 09:33:52-EDT
From: Bruce.Lucas@CMU-CS-G
To: space@mc
Subject: naming names

Should then the Earth be called Columbus, in recognition of Columbus's
contribution to convincing his contemporaries of the Earth's (er, sorry,
Columbus's--the planet, that is, not the man) true nature?

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 1983 15:44-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Extrasolar planets
Via:  Usc-Cse; 27 Aug 83 16:33:46

Science News reports that astronomers using a 1.5 meter astrometric
telescope in Flagstaff, Arizona have found "wobbles" around two stars,
indicating planet sized orbiting bodies.  One of the stars (I forget
its name) is a dim (yet glowing) body about 40 times the mass of
jupiter.  The mass can be determined since it is orbiting another star.
The article pointed out that some astronomers have (falsely) claimed
that Jupiter would have to be 80x larger to ignite fusion.

The same astronomers looked at Barnard's star, and found no evidence of
large planets there.  This directly contradicts earlier claims of
stellar motion caused by a superjovian planet.

 

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 83 10:38:48-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!hogpc!houxo!lpa @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Dates for STS-9 and any others this fall??

Does anyone out there know the tentative dates for the
liftoff of STS-9 and any other launches scheduled for this
fall (Until Dec. actually) ??  I live in NJ and some of my
buddies and I want to go to Florida and watch the liftoff.
Please mail me the dates if you know them and thanx in advance.

				Andy Andres
				AT&T Consumer Products Laboratories (??)
				...houxo!lpa

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Aug-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #199    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 199

Today's Topics:
			   perigee, apogee    
			    Extrasolar planets
			    Re: Laser Weapons
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 August 1983 18:14 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: perigee, apogee    
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC
cc: HPM @ S1-A

HPM has a good point. Let me play devil's advocate in favor of his
point (although I probably would have take the other side in a vote
yesterday):

Originally the Earth was the whole known universe (except for the
Heavens which were regarded as of a fundamentally different nature,
later were believed to be minor objects orbiting the Earth). "Geo" as
a prefix probably began back then and ambiguously meant both this
planet and the whole universe. When we become aware that Earth and
Universe aren't the same, in fact that the Earth is a small planet in
a very big Universe, we can choose whether "geo" should stick with
"Earth" or with "Universe". Up to this time the stuffy people
(including myself) have been claiming that "geo" meant "Earth", but
maybe we should have it mean "Universe" instead, and use "Sol-3" when
we mean "Earth". Thus "Geology" would be the generic study of land
while "Sol-3 geology" would be the specific study of land on Earth.

Any good arguments why "geo" should stick with Earth instead of with
Universe? Or for that matter, any good arguments the other way? My
only argument for picking HPM's choice is simplicity, better have a
short term ("geo" is 3 letters) apply everywhere and have longer terms
for specific cases. But that's a weak argument when there are 4.5
thousand million people who have never left Earth and only about a
hundred who have ever left Earth momentarily, and nobody who actually
resides elsewhere yet. Maybe we should postpone decision until 50% of
our population is in off-Earth, then make HPM's choice officially?

------------------------------

Date: 28 August 1983 18:43 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Extrasolar planets
To: dietz%usc-cse @ USC-ECL
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

This is an astrophysics question: Small stars can't ignite hydrogen
fusion at all. Large stars ignite it and burn until it's virtually
exhausted, starting in the center and working outward until the helium
core is the whole star and the hydrogen outer part is infinitesimal.
Question, are there just-barely-stars which ignite hydrogen fusion in
their centers but can't maintain it and go out before the
burning-shell has reached the surface, leaving a helium core and a
hydrogen outer part permanently?

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 83 4:15:40-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Laser Weapons
In-Reply-To: Article <4145@sri-arpa.UUCP>

"......DARPA Director Robert Cooper told the Congress on March 23 of this
year, 'We are conducting research and planning related to space weaponry,
but I emphasize that no commitment has been made to acquire space-based
weapons.  And we will proceed only if our national security is so
threatened.'"

The director of DARPA does not think that 1000+ Soviet ICBMs (the most
prominent targets for space weaponry) are a threat to the national
security of the United States.  Charming.  He's been in the Pentagon
too long, I think.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #200    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 200

Today's Topics:
		       mis-information in Newsweek
			    Re:  Laser Weapons
		Re: There is only one solar system - (nf)
			   Re: Name of the sun
			     Countdown Begins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 August 1983 12:58 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: mis-information in Newsweek
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Newsweek for Aug 22 claims "Vega is visible only in the Northern
Hemisphere". This is false. Vega is located about 38 degrees north
(from the celestial equator), so it can be seen above the horizon all
the way to about 90-38 = 52 degrees southern latitude at the right
time of night. I might write a letter to Newsweek pointing out their
error.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 1983 16:13:22 PDT
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: Re:  Laser Weapons
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:   METH@USC-ISI

Re: Laser Weapons

     The  more  appropriate  point  is  that   the 
Soviets  already have a space weapon.   Be that as 
it may,  things are not always as they seem.   Dr. 
Cooper has the freedom to say what he said because 
the  state of the art in  space  (laser,  particle 
beam,  microwave, kinetic, etc.) weaponry is still 
at  the point where the mere threat of  developing 
the  technology  is  a viable  leverage  point  in 
negotiations.   The  threat to our security is not 
the  missiles the USSR has already,  but would  be 
the  fielding  of an  operational  space  weaponry 
system,  or  the  development of  a  significantly 
better ICBM.

-Sheldon Meth
-------

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 83 11:04:51 PDT (Mon)
From: Katz.UCI@Rand-Relay
Return-Path: <Katz%UCI.UCI@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Re: There is only one solar system - (nf)
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@Mit-Mc>
Cc: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton@Ucb-Vax, SPACE@Mit-Mc, katz.UCI@Rand-Relay
In-Reply-To: Your message of 26 August 1983 21:52 EDT.
Via:  UCI; 29 Aug 83 17:04-PDT

The proper term for a "light-to-electric transducer" is a
photovoltaic cell.  It is a generic term which includes all
such transducers and includes both generators (solar cells) and
sensors (e.g. electric eye door openers).

------------------------------

Date: 30 August 1983 03:31 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC>
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, KFL @ MIT-MC


        Date: 25 Aug 83 13:58 PDT (Thursday)
        From: Manley.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
        Subject: Re: Name of the sun
 
        It is appropriate to name our galaxy after Giordano Bruno and our sun
        after Copernicus, especially since Bruno was burned at the stake for
        holding these views while Copernicus just barely escaped this fate by
        dying before his book was published.
 
  Who shall we name the local cluster after?  Or the local
supercluster?
  I wonder who will finally work out the all-over structure of the
universe as a whole and hence will have the whole universe named after
him (her?).
                                                                ...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 83 12:12:11-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Countdown Begins

With the call to stations yesterday, the countdown for the
laucnh of STS-8 began.  Launch is still scheduled for 0215
EDT on 30 August.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Aug-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #201    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 201

Today's Topics:
		     Countdown Continuing Flawlessly
			   Re: Name of the sun
			   Lexical Obfuscation
			     Night Launching
			    ET Fueling Begins
		    Gold disk sent out of solar system
	      Re: Dates for STS-9 and any others this fall??
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 83 9:38:40-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Countdown Continuing Flawlessly

The countdown towards the launch of STS-8 continued
on schedule today, and NASA predicted the best weather
yet for tomorrow's early morning launch of Challenger.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 83 10:03:13-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!esj @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name of the sun
In-Reply-To: Article <4526@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Have these names been officially adopted by the IAU or are these
*suggestions* ?

ihnp4!ihuxl!esj

------------------------------

Sender: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Date: 30 Aug 83 09:58:47 EDT (Tuesday)
Subject: Lexical Obfuscation
To: Katz.UCI@Rand-Relay.ARPA
cc: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA, REM@Mit-Mc.ARPA,
 pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton@Ucb-Vax.ARPA, Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
From: Chris Heiny <Heiny.henr@Parc-Maxc.ARPA>

"light-to-electric transducer"?  Why not 'Photon powered current
generator', or 'device which generates electricity from incident light'?
Shades of the Department of Defense and their "Portable hand held
communications inscriber" (known as a pencil in the real world).

When a word is too cumbersome for ready use (and often if it is not), a
shortened derivative will be used by the common speaker, much as
'aeroplane' went to 'airplane' and is now just 'plane', or 'piano' comes
from 'pianoforte'.  A light-to-electric transducer is bound to suffer
the same fate, perhaps coming to be called an ellted, which is no more
meaningful than 'solar cell'.

				Chris

------------------------------

Date: Tue 30 Aug 83 14:08:49-CDT
From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: Night Launching
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

A few weeks ago somebody questioned the necessity of a night launch,
given that Cape Canaveral and the ultimate destination of the Indian
Communications Satellite are fixed relative to each other regardless
of what orientation the earth has at any given time.  Was this question
ever answered?  If so, could somebody send me a message with the
explanation?  (I left town and missed several digests.)

Thanks,

Clive

P.S. The only theory I can come up with is that the deployment sequence
makes use of certain fixed stars for navigation and/or they want it to
happen at a certain time of day in India (or Houston).
-------

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 83 19:47:18-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: ET Fueling Begins

Workers starting fueling Challenger's external tank with
oxygen and hydrogen this evening, in preparation for tomorrow
morning's launch.

Meanwhile, NASA today announced that a news conference
with the astronauts still in space will be held this
coming Saturday at 0339 EDT.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 83 18:37:46-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxj!wapd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Gold disk sent out of solar system

	Sorry about the cryptic title.  What I am referring to is
the gold disk on the side of whatever vehicle is leaving the
solar system (Pioneer ?).  The thing with the drawing of a man
and a woman, picture of solar system, etc.

	I forget where I saw it, but I saw a picture of it that
explained everything on it.  The question is :  what were the
little dashes or dots that were supposed to be the numbers 1-10
in binary ?  I looked at it and could not decipher it as that
or anything else meaningful, and I had been "told what it was".

	Could someone reproduce that piece and explain it ?

				Bill Dietrich
				houxj!wapd

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 83 0:48:52-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Dates for STS-9 and any others this fall??
In-Reply-To: Article <186@houxo.UUCP>

STS-9 is scheduled to launch on 28 October.  STS-10 was
scheduled to launch on 5 November, but it looks like it
will in fact be cancelled due to lack of payload.  STS-11
(STS-10??) is scheduled to launch on 23 December, but
with STS-10 probably gone, it may be moved ahead.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #202    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 202

Today's Topics:
		Re: Is there more here than meets the eye
			NASA Goals and Objectives
			      "Solar cells"
				**LAUNCH**
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 Aug 83 09:10 PDT
From: MKrigel.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Is there more here than meets the eye
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: MKrigel.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Is everybody satisfied with NASA's explanation for the night take-off
and landing of Challenger?  The explanation for the night lift-off had
something to do with the Indian Satelite which will be deployed sometime
today! (31-Aug).  Now, about the night time landing . . .

Marc

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 1983 16:14:22 PDT
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: NASA Goals and Objectives
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:   METH@USC-ISI

     On August 24,  James M. Beggs, NASA Administrator, announced goals and 
objectives for his Agency.  A summary follows:

1.   Provide  for our people a creative environment and the best of facili-
     ties, support services, and managment support so they can perform with 
     excellence  NASA's research,  development,  mission,  and  operational 
     responsibilities.

     -    Increase construction budget 50% in FY84 and another 33% in FY85.
     -    Hire  370 recent science and engineering graduates in 83 and  400 
          more in 84.
     -    Meet or exceed EEO goals.
     -    Complete development of TDRSS to be ready for operations in FY84.

2.   Make the STS fully operational and cost effective in providing routine 
     access to space for domestic and foreign,  commercial and governmental 
     users.

     -    Carry out 21 STS missions in FY84 and FY85.   STS operations  R&D 
          costs not to exceed $1.8B in FY84 and $2.2B in FY85.
     -    Capture  75% of the planned free-world commercial launch payloads 
          through 1988.
     -    Develop a Centaur upper stage compatible with STS by 2Q FY86.

3.   Establish a permanent manned presence in space to expand the  explora-
     tion  and  use of space for activities which enhance the security  and 
     welfare of mankind.

[NOTE:  The jury (i.e. President Reagan) is still out on this one!]

     -    Complete analysis of requirements and define system  architecture 
          to  support  inclusion  of a space station  in  President's  FY85 
          budget.
     -    During FY84, conduct advanced development and technology programs 
          to  insure readiness of key technologies to support space station 
          development.

4.   Conduct  an  effective  and productive aeronautics  research  and  and 
     technology  program which contributes materially to the enduring  pre-
     eminence of US civil and military aviation.

     -    Provide a fully operational Class IV computational capability  at 
          the  research centers by September 1983;  implement the Numerical 
          Aerodynamic Simulator (NAS);  complete a satellite data link bet-
          ween the research centers by October 1984.
     -    By October 1984,  develop and implement a long range aeronautical 
          facilities acquisition strategy.

5.   Conduct  an effective and productive Space and Earth Sciences  Program 
     which expands human knowledge of the Earth, its environment, the solar 
     system, and the universe.

     -    Maintain  Space  Telescope  schedule for launch in last  half  of 
          1986; total funding not to exceed $196M in FY84.
     -    Maintain Galileo Project on schedule for launch in 2Q 1986; total 
          funding not to exceed $80M in FY84.
     -    Reduce  Spacelab preparation times and  mission  costs;  complete 
          Spacelab  3  to launch September 1984;  total real  year  mission 
          management/integration costs not to exceed $20M.
     -    By 1985, establish an active long term Earth Sciences program.

6.   Conduct  effective  and productive space applications  and  technology 
     programs  which contribute materially toward US leadership and securi-
     ty.

     -    Complete negotiations by December 1983, for the Advanced Communi-
          cations Technology Satellite.     
     -    Real growth in NASA space research and technology program of  30% 
          per year in FY85 and FY86.

7.   Expand  opportunities for US private sector investment and involvement 
     in civil space and space-related activities.

     -    Formulate  a  space commercialization policy  and  implementation 
          program plan by the end of 1983.
     -    Support commercialization of expendable launch vehicles by recom-
          mending appropriate procedures in FY 84.

8.   Establish  NASA  as  a leader in the development  and  application  of 
     advanced  technology and management practices which contribute to sig-
     nificant increases in both Agency and national productivity.

     -    Establish,  by  end 1983,  strategies for greater involvement  of 
          employees in the decision making process.
     -    Reduce by 20%, management and administrative paperwork.
     -    Establish NASA-wide guidelines for office automation and adminis-
          trative  ADP by end 1983;  assess pilot projects in  1984;  begin 
          full scale implementation in 1985.
     -    Beginning in FY84,  conduct pilot productivity incentive programs 
          on a major development project.
     -    Establish  a  capability  for  Agency-wide  sharing  of   CAD/CAM 
          techniques by FY84.

------------------------------

Date: 1 September 1983 00:56 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC>
Subject: "Solar cells"
To: Heiny.henr @ PARC-MAXC
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, KFL @ MIT-MC

      Date: 30 Aug 83 09:58:47 EDT (Tuesday)
        From: Chris Heiny <Heiny.henr@Parc-Maxc.ARPA>
 
        "light-to-electric transducer"?  Why not 'Photon powered current
        generator', or 'device which generates electricity from incident light'?
 
  At SAI (which uses them extensively) we always call them photovoltaic
cells or just PV cells or PV panels.
                                                                ...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 83 2:48:31-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: **LAUNCH**

Delayed 17 minutes due to bad weather at KSC, the Challenger
achieved a perfect launch and ascent this morning, beginning
at 0232 EDT.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Sep-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #203    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 203

Today's Topics:
			       space stamps
			     Re: naming names
		      Orbit Attained -- TDRS Tested
			NASA Goals and Objectives
		  Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system
			  Re: Techno-philosophy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 83 10:59:09-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!kwmc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: space stamps

Is there any limit to the number of stamps that can be ordered ?

and

Can the order be sent in by Express Mail (TM) or must it go in in
the regular mail ?

			Ken Cochran,	hou5d!kwmc

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 83 10:07:04-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxz!halle1 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: naming names
In-Reply-To: Article <4609@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Actually, our planet should be called !^$(<<+=}[[| after the Jovian
astronomer who first discovered it.          88=))   (well, that's what
						      they look like)

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 83 12:31:40-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Orbit Attained -- TDRS Tested

The Challenger achieved its intended orbit flawlessly
after this morning's launch.  Afterwards, the crew held
a conversation with ground control via the TDRS-1 satellite,
the first voice relay test of the bird.  More extensive
testing of the satellite is planned for the duration of
the mission.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 1983 0707-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: NASA Goals and Objectives
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: Space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 1-Sep-83 07:07:07.WMARTIN>

Did anyone else notice the blatant age discrimination in the
report of Beggs' announced goals and objectives?

        "Hire 370 RECENT science and engineering graduates in 83
	 and 400 more in 84."

(My emphasis added.)  Specifying "recent graduates" is one of
the standard age-discrimination tactics constantly being pointed
out by Irwin Feerst and his Committee of Concerned EE's; instead
of hiring by pure ability, whereby you may hire older engineers who
earn higher salaries, you hire only cheaper new graduates.  (Of
course, the engineering pay system differentials have broken down
so far that the difference between a new graduate's and a senior
engineer's salaries is too small to allow reasonable career
progression these days.  This helps "encourage" the older
engineer to move into management or leave...)

Interesting that such a blatant example has been publicized so
widely; I hope some fuss gets raised over it.

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 83 10:39:56 PDT (Thursday)
From: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system
In-reply-to: Bill Dietrich's message of 29 Aug 83 18:37:46-PDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

The gold disks were on the Voyagers (1 and 2), had recordings of sounds 
and sights of earth on them, and are not what you are describing.  The 
gold-anodized aluminum rectangular plaques have the drawings you refer 
to, and were on Pioneers 10 and 11.  

The binary numbers are represented by ones for ones and dashes for zeros.  
They are used in four places on the plaques.  1) There is a one by the 
drawing of hydrogen atoms emitting their characteristic wavelength (21 cm).  
This is to show that this is the time and distance unit for the other 
numbers.  2) There is an eight (1---) next to a dimension (of 8 x 21 cm) 
on a picture of the spacecraft and people.  This gives the size of the 
people and double checks the size units against the spacecraft itself.  
3) There are large binary numbers giving the periods (in units of the 
time period of 21 cm hydrogen) of 14 prominent nearby pulsars.  4) The 
distances from the sun to each of the nine planets is given in weird 
units (approx 0.039 AU). 

The directions and relative distances of the pulsars are given by a 
diagram.  The positions and periods would allow determination of the 
location of our system within several light years and the time of launch 
within a year (because pulsar periods increase with time).  The diagram 
of the planets would allow precise identification of the sun and earth.  
More info on the plaques is in one chapter of "The Cosmic Connection" 
by Carl Sagan.

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 1 September 1983 19:29 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Techno-philosophy
To: Haas @ UTAH-20
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

If a couple's reason for having children is to use them as slaves on
the family farm, then indeed technology can provide a cheap
replacement for children. If a couple's reason is to have heirs
(biologically, financially, etc.), technology doesn't help any.

Expansion into space will however alleviate the common pasture
problem, because there will be for the disadvantaged people who can't
get land on Earth some alternative to death, namely getting "land" in
space. Still there's be those who refuse to accept spaceland as a
substitute for Earthland, so the problem won't totally go away, but at
least there'll be a viable choice for many people.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #204    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 204

Today's Topics:
			     SRB's Recovered
		    Miles per gallon of space shuttle
		       Re: BC-CERAMICS-2takes-08-22
		  Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system
			  Re: Techno-philosophy
		      Bad science reporting by AP  
	  NASA's exposure via the media and the future of space
			     Re: naming names
	      Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 83 16:37:06-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SRB's Recovered

The SRB's used for STS-8 were spotted by radar just 8 minutes
after today's launch, and by 0750 EDT this morning, they were
already under tow back to Port Canaveral.  They are due to
arrive there tomorrow (Wed.) morning.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 83 14:44:11-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!kwmc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Miles per gallon of space shuttle

Would anyone like to hazard a guess to the fuel consumption figures
EPA  est. hwy.    or whatever of the space shuttle. I would think
that on a miles per gallon basis it was quite fuel efficient. Just
think of the distance it travels on one (external) tank full.
		Calculations to the net please.
			Ken cochran      hou5d!kwmc

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 83 15:11:05-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!shark!sdb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: BC-CERAMICS-2takes-08-22

I don't know much about chemical bonds, but it seems to me that
silicon nitride should be extremely explosive. Obviously it isn't
if they can line the cylinders of a diesel engine with it...

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 83 20:11:10-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!patm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system

	The dashed lines represent the patterns of radio signals
generated by a dozen or so pulsars. In theory a reasonably intelli-
gent being could triangulate the position of our solar system by
the angular relationships of these signals to one another. I don't
know how this is done in three dimensions given a two dimensional
representation. But at any rate, let's hope that the beings that
pick up this wandering roadmap don't have to park their battle
cruisers to haul it in...

Pat McNamara
Tektronix, Inc.

------------------------------

Date:  2 Sep 1983 1200-MDT
From: Walt <Haas@UTAH-20>
Subject: Re: Techno-philosophy
To: REM@MIT-MC
cc: SPACE@MIT-MC

So far, all feasible techniques of expansion into space are highly
capital-intensive.  Capital-intensive societies tend to have
declining populations.  The same technologies that make expansion into
space possible also remove the population-pressure incentive for
expanding into space.  There are, of course, plenty of other incentives-
of which my favorite is the same incentive that makes me climb mountains.

Cheers  -- Walt

------------------------------

Date: 02 Sep 83  1135 PDT
From: Robert Maas <REM@SU-AI>
Subject: Bad science reporting by AP  
To:   REM@MIT-MC, SPACE@MIT-MC   

Editor of the Times-Tribune:

I was greatly dismayed to see the shoddy journalism in the AP story you
published on September 1 on page A-3. You and AP seem to be conspiring
to confuse the public about how the simple laws of motion discovered
and formulated by Isaac Newton work.

You say "To move an object in outer space takes force sufficient to
overcome the inertia. And once the object is moving, it takes force
equal to the inertia, plus the velocity of the movement, to bring it
to rest." This is uneducated mindrot which has virtually nothing to
do with the correct formulation of Newton's laws of motion. First, you
seem to be saying there's a particular amount of force needed to overcome
the inertia of an object. You're wrong, any amount of force no matter how
small will start an object moving. The more force you use the more rapidly
it will gain speed, and the longer you continue to apply a given force the
faster speed it will reach. But there's no such thing as "force sufficient
to overcome the inertia". Then you claim the force to stop is equal to
the inertia plus the velocity. This is definitely nonsense since neither
inertia nor velocity is in the same units as force, and neither can be
equated to force. It also implies the force to stop is greater than the
force to stop. This is false, the force to stop is the same as the force to
start, if both are applied for the same time. To stop you have to exactly
do the opposite of what you did when you started, apply the same force
for the same time, or half the force for twice the time, or twice the
force for half the time, etc.

In the next paragraph you say that Newton passed that law about inertia.
What has the writer been smoking lately?  Doesn't the writer know the
difference in usage of the word "law" between legal statutes which are
passed by some legal group such as Congress, and formulations of how
nature behaves which are merely observations of how things already are?
Newton didn't "pass" the laws of planetary motion! He formulated them
to explain the way things are.

Finally you show disrespect for Newton when you refer to "that law, and
some others Newton dreamed up". Those formulations of natural action were
NOT dreamed up, they were carefully thought out. You sound like you think
Newton made up these laws just to make more work for people, and then
forced them on the rest of us, the way some lawmakers pass complicated
income tax regulations that only lawyers can understand. Actually Newton's
laws of motion unified and simplified our ways of predicting the behaviour
of objects in motion, replacing ideas like gods carrying planets
in chariots (or planets attached to gigantic glass spheres),
and objects trying to get to their natural place. Even so, none
of his laws were forced on us, we had the choice of which formulations to
use, and we found that Newton's laws were much more accurate than anything
before so we took to using them for our calculations of motion.

Instead of publishing that totally wrong and confusing stuff, you would
have done better not to publish anything at all. Next time how about
asking somebody who has had a course in high-school physics to proofread
this kind of article before you publish it?

------------------------------

Date: 2 September 1983 21:14 EDT
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-ML>
Subject: NASA's exposure via the media and the future of space
To: space @ MIT-MC

	With the space shuttle making space travel routine, the
coverage of space activies by the major news media is disappearing. I
am really fearful that this will result in the old apathy about space
among the general public which will make it easier for space budgets
to be cut. 
	There is a way to circumvent this problem, namely getting a
space channel established on a major cable TV company. The NASA feed
is already there, NASA has a transponder on SATCOM IIa which is used
to broadcast all of NASA's video (you can't listen in on it with the
usual satellite receivers since the signal is weak and requires a 30
foot dish). Has anyone ever had any experience try to convince a cable
company to add a new channel? Does anybody know the addresses of the 
major cable companies so that I could write them a letter?
	By the way, when I was in Washington sightseeing in April, I
asked some people at NASA headquarters about their satellite links,
and the most important thing they said relating to rebroadcast is that
anyone would be free to do it.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 83 14:10:27-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!bentson @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: naming names
In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.4609

How about calling them stellar cells?
Other light sources are (largely) secondary from a star.

Randy Bentson
csu-cs!bentson
Colo State U - Comp Sci

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 83 19:28:53-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekcad!paulp @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system - (nf)

#R:houxj:-28700:tekcad:9000001:000:656
tekcad!paulp    Aug 30 19:11:00 1983

The directions of the lines, and the dot dashes along them, point
to pulsars as seen from the earth.  The binary information relates
their rotational periods in terms of the 21 cm line of neutral
hydrogen.

Presuming the spin down rates of pulsars are constant, or that the
perturbing factors can be determined, the finder can identify the
pulsars, regress their proper motions, and find the solar system.

				    Paul Pomes

Usenet:	    {ucbvax,decvax,pur-ee,ihnss,chico}!teklabs!tekcad!paulp
CSnet:	    paulp@tek
ARPA:	    paulp.tek@rand-relay
US Mail:    Paul Pomes, Tektronix, Inc.
	    Box 500  MS 59-323, Beaverton OR  97077
Phone:	    503-627-2341

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #205    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 205

Today's Topics:
			Indian Satellite Launched
			False Alarm Aboard Shuttle
				RMS Flexed
		     Radio Contact Lost and Regained
			 Fusion process in stars
		  Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system
			    Apogee and Perigee
			     space telescope
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 83 4:22:49-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Indian Satellite Launched

The crew of the Challenger successfully deployed an Indian
comminucations satellite at 0349 EDT today.  Forty-five minutes
later, the satellites own rocket fired and it began the journey
to a geosynchronous orbit.  An Indian tracking station confirmed
the firing and its accuracy.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 83 19:44:56-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: False Alarm Aboard Shuttle

An alarm signalling possible fire conditions in an instrument bay
sounded aboard the Challenger today, but it turned out to be false.
The alarm, which senses gasses, tends to be overly sensitive, and
has gone off before, on the prototype shuttle Enterprise, but never
in flight.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 83 7:26:13-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: RMS Flexed

The astronauts yesterday flexed the remote manipulator system
and tested its strength in space by grappling a 7460 pound
dummy satellite and moving it around the cargo bay.  It was
the heaviest payload the arm has lifted yet.  On STS-13, the
arm will grapple the 5000 pound sun observatory satellite,
bring it into the cargo bay for repair, and then redeploy it
in orbit.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 83 9:49:56-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Radio Contact Lost and Regained

Problems with computers at the TDRS ground station at
White Sands led to a three hour period this morning in
which NASA received no information from the shuttle.
The information was supposed to be relayed through
the TDRS-1 satellite.  NASA said there was no danger
to the astronauts, and they could have been awakened
at any time in order to put the spacecraft in direct
communication with ground stations.  Finally, they
were awakened 40 minutes early to do just that.  Later,
the problems at White Sands were cleared up.  So far,
11 of 19 TDRS tests planned for this flight have been
executed.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 83 14:35:40-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekecs!davidl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Fusion process in stars
In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.4631

As I understand it, a "just-barely star" which ignites but then burns out
before all its hydrogen fuel is consumed is called a white dwarf.

The fate of a star is determined by its mass.  All stars on the Main Sequence
begin as clouds of cold hydrogen.  If the mass of the cloud is insufficient to
cause its collapse and ignition, the cloud remains a cloud.  If the mass is
great enough, pressure and gravitational potential energy force the atoms in
the center together into fusion (actually a very complex process, not just
bashing two hydrogens together to make one helium).  At this point the star
"flashes", which blows the more tenous outer nebula away.  The mass of the star
itself is that portion of the nebula which was close enough to the center that
its gravitational attraction is greater than the pressure caused by fusion.
This balance of pressure versus gravity determines the star's size throughout
its life.

The star burns until the hydrogen in the core (the core is the part where
pressures are high enough to sustain hydrogen fusion) is all turned into
helium.  Note that the outer parts of the star, where pressures are too low for
hydrogen fusion, remain hydrogen.  At this point the star goes out.  Pressure
drops and gravity begins to take over.  The star begins to collapse.

Again the mass of the star determines what happens.  A star with sufficient
mass collapses until the pressure at the center is great enough to fuse helium.
Again the star ignites in a "helium flash," which blows away a portion of the
outer atmosphere of the star.  Now the star is a red giant.  (When this happens
to the sun, the Earth and all the inner planets will be absorbed.)  For stars
smaller than a certain mass, there is insufficient gravity to cause helium
fusion and the star simply fades away as a white dwarf -> black dwarf.
It takes a long time for a white dwarf to cool off.  In fact, any which exist
in our galaxy, even the very oldest, are still cooling.

After the red giant phase, this scenario repeats again and again: burn out
core, collapse, re-ignite with a new form of fusion.  At each iteration stars
with mass too small to ignite the next phase cool off and die.  More massive
stars continue building up shells of unburned material (hydrogen on the
outside, then helium, etc.), resembling onions.  Eventually the most massive
stars reach the point that the core is fusing into iron.

Iron is funny.  All elements lighter than iron release energy when they fuse,
but iron and the heavier elements require energy input to cause fusion.  When
the progenitor element of iron in the star's core is all fused away, the star
burns out and collapses again.  This time, when fusion of iron begins the
process takes energy away rather than adding it, hastening the collapse.  As
the star collapses faster and faster, strange things start to happen.  Hydrogen
and other unburned fuels begin to fuse as pressures rise, and fusion of iron
increases as well (accelerating the process further).  Now neutrinos
(a byproduct of the fusion process) are generated in vast numbers.  Normally
these neutrinos escape the star (this is happening all the time), but at
this point the star is so dense that they are stopped (!!).  The energy carried
by each is re-absorbed by the star, hastening fusion and collapse still
further.  This results in a chain reaction: a supernova!  The star explodes
when pressures exceed the gravity of such a massive star, scattering the
elements manufactured to the four (solar) winds.  Eddies of phenomenal pressure
in the process cause fusion to create the heaviest elements, which are not
otherwise produced in stars.

In this way are all the elements in the Periodic Table produced from hydrogen.

A modern just-so story from

  -- David D. Levine   (...decvax!tektronix!tekecs!davidl)      [UUCP]
                       (...tekecs!davidl.tektronix@rand-relay)  [ARPA]

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 83 14:14:46-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!CSvax.cmh @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system
In-Reply-To: Article houxj.287 bronze.715

I don't think we are of such intergalactic importance
that unknown space races pull out their space fleet to
zap us...
Chris Hoffmann

------------------------------

Date:  3 Sep 1983 2238-PDT
Subject: Apogee and Perigee
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: katz@USC-ISIF.ARPA

The real definition of apogee and perigee comes from the
"Space glossary for unspacefied people" by Loyd Rosenfield of
the Saterday Evening Post:

		Apogee:  The opposite of perigee
		Perigee: The opposite of apogee

(other definitions:  Lift Off: An English elevator out of order,
 and Absolute Zero: What I am left with on April 15).

					Sorry,

					Alan

-------

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 83 13:00:32-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!nsc!chongo @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: space telescope

does anyony know what the status of the space telescope is?

chongo /\../\

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #206    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 206

Today's Topics:
			       Name change?
				  When?
			      Dial-A-Shuttle
			    Name of the moon?
				Re: When?
			Status of Space Telescope
			     Re: Name change?
			   Re: Name of the sun
			     Re: Name change?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 83 14:30:06-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxk!summers @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Name change?

Shouldn't the name of this newsgroup change from
net.columbia to net.shuttle? There is more than 
one space/aircraft. Any comments?
-- 
			Robert L. Summers
			Bell Laboratories
			Naperville, Illinois 60566
			(312) 979-1649
			ucbvax!ihnss!ihuxk!summers

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 83 12:34:37-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!ecn-ec.stocker @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: When?

What is the latest date/time for the landing of STS-8?

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 83 14:23:05-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxk!summers @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Dial-A-Shuttle

	For those interested there is a 900 number which
operates during shuttle missions which you can call and
listen in to Mission Control-Shuttle communications. It is
run by the National Space Institute (a non-profit organization).
 The number is 1-900-410-6272. This is a toll call.
-- 
			Robert L. Summers
			Bell Laboratories
			Naperville, Illinois 60566
			(312) 979-1649
			ucbvax!ihnss!ihuxk!summers

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 83 9:30:33-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!turner @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Name of the moon?
In-Reply-To: Article <4526@sri-arpa.UUCP>

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 83 19:30:52-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: When?
In-Reply-To: Article <1107@ecn-ec.UUCP>

The shuttle is scheduled to land at 0340 EDT on 5 September
at EAFB.

------------------------------

Date:  4 Sep 1983 19:11:13 PDT
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: Status of Space Telescope
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:   METH@USC-ISI

     The current semiofficial launch date for the Space Telescope 
(ST) is the second half of 1986.
     The  main mirror has been installed in the main ring of  the 
optical telescope assembly (OTA) at Perkin-Elmer (this  structure 
is  truly a sight to behold).   Most of the OTA structural compo-
nents have been fabricated and baked out.   The secondary  mirror 
assembly  has just completed vibration testing at PE and the main 
line OTA assembly should begin shortly.  The entire OTA is sched-
uled to be shipped to Lockheed Missiles and Space Company  (LMSC) 
in late 1984.
     One  of  the critical paths currently is the  Fine  Guidance 
Sensor (FGS).   Several problems still plague these devices,  but 
the  assembly  and integration is still just  on  schedule.   The 
optical control system (OCS) is also in assembly and on schedule.
     The scientific instruments have experienced slight delays in 
their initial construction,  test,  and shipment to Goddard Space 
Flight  Center (GSFC) for their Verification and Acceptance Prog-
ram  (VAP).   The overall VAP program is barely on  sechdule  and 
will  probably be delayed a month or so.   The scientific instru-
ments are scheduled to be shipped to LMSC in March of 1985.  
     The  computers and software for the ST are experiencing  the 
usual problems inherent in a multiprocessor system.   Parkinson's 
law (things expand to fill the available space) is operative here 
with  regard  to the computer memory,  however the  problems  are 
being addressed satisfactoraly,  and no software "show  stoppers" 
are expected.
     In conclusion,  while there are continuous problems cropping 
up  (and being expertly solved by those involved in the  program) 
as  ST moves from component fabrication and test to system integ-
ration,  I  expect there is an excellent chance that  the  launch 
date will be met.

-Sheldon Meth
-------

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 83 22:28:00-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name change?
In-Reply-To: Article <448@ihuxk.UUCP>

I don't believe this!  For (hopefully) the LAST time, we have
been over and over this again and again.  When this group was
cut off a couple years ago and merged with net.space, people
wrote me and asked to reinstate net.columbia.  When a poll was
held after that (for the first time) asking if we should change
the name, the overwhelming response was no.  Since then, the
subject has come up countless times, and every time the decision
is to let it stay net.columbia.  Put it to rest already!

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 83 11:19:41-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!genrad!security!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trw-unix!trwspp!urban @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name of the sun
In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.4526

When we discuss the "name of the Sun" or "Snickers" or that
stuff, what is the name of the body that officially sanctions
these names?

	Not afraid to ask a dumb question.

	Mike Urban
	[ucbvax|decvax]!trw-unix!trwspp!urban

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 83 11:33:22-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!james @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name change?

Probably, but this way makes the newsgroup more ___________.

Fill in the blank with, maybe, exclusive, anachronistic, clever.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #207    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 207

Today's Topics:
		    Orbit Lowered -- New Landing Time
			      Supernovae...
			  Re: Techno-philosophy
			       naming stars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 83 7:22:50-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Orbit Lowered -- New Landing Time

Truly yesterday fired the orbiting maneuvering engines to lower
the Challenger's orbit from 193 to 139 miles.  The planned lowering
is to allow the shuttle to pass through a dense layer of atomic
oxygen particles to see how they will erode several samples of
different surfaces, from paint to telescope lenses, that will be
used in future flights.

I erroneously reported the landing time of the shuttle as 0340 EDT
on the 5th.  It will be at 0323 EDT.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 1983 10:51-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Supernovae...
Via:  Usc-Cse; 05 Sep 83 11:35:27

Actually, we really don't know what makes a supernova explode.  Here's
what we do know:  as a large star burns, iron accumulates in its core.
The iron is inert.  The core is kept from collapsing by the pressure of
degenerate electrons.  As the core becomes more and more massive, the
electrons become relativistic.  This limits the maximum pressure they
can exert.  Eventually, the electron start burrowing into the nuclei,
converting protons to neutrons and electron neutrinos.  The core
dissolves into a sea of neutrons.

It was formerly thought that the core was transparent enough to let
these neutrinos escape.  Calculations showed that there would be so
many produced that they could actually blow the star apart (by the weak
interaction).  Unfortunately, further calculations with the new
electroweak theory show that the neutrinos are trapped in the core.
This has interesting effects, one of which is to retard the conversion
of protons to neutrons.

It is now thought that the degenerate iron core collapses to a neutron
star and beyond.  The equation of state of neutron star matter is only
poorly understood, but it is believed that after collapsing beyond the
density of a neutron star the core is suddenly halted by nucleon-nucleon
repulsion.  A shock wave is generated, propagating the tremendous
kinetic energy of the collapse outwards, blowing away the rest of the
star.

This model only describes one kind of supernova (two kinds are
observed).  Other theories include the collapse of white dwarf stars
that grow to more than 1.4 solar masses, or large stars that undergo
"catastrophic carbon burning".  This refers to a kind of nuclear
reaction in large stars with a rate that goes as the 11th power of
temperature.  The theory is that this reaction raises the temperature,
which makes the reaction run faster, etc. until a runaway explosion
occurs.

 

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 83 21:26:36 PDT (Monday)
From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Techno-philosophy
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@MIT-MC.ARPA>
cc: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA, Haas@UTAH-20.ARPA, Hamilton.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Let's once and for all get rid of this notion that expansion into space
will have any significant impact whatsoever on the population problem.
Let's do some ballpark arithmetic:  say we're adding 3 billion people in
the next 30 years (conservatively).  A linear approximation of this
exponential function will suffice for this argument -- 3 billion over 30
= 100 million new bodies (net) per year.  100 million over 365 = 273972.
That's more than 10K people per hour, roughly 3 people per SECOND.  Even
with some sort of "elevators to orbit" technology, the energy and
resources required to stablized earth's human population would be
incredible.

But ever more to the point, any exponentially growing population will
eventually reach the point where it would have to be expanding outward
in a sphere at the speed of light to keep the internal density from
increasing.

Personally, I suspect that the optimal human population (large enough to
allow for certain economies of scale in basic industries, and redundancy
in all important sectors of the economy) is on the order of 100 million.
Does anyone know of any studies addressing this question, or the
question of the minimal population required to sustain something
resembling our present economy and lifestyles?  It's certainly an
important issue for space colonization.

I don't care to see the entire surface of the earth and other nearby
bodies, natural or artificial, approach the density of mid-town
Manhattan.

--Bruce

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 83 11:29:34-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!watmath!echrzanowski @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: naming stars

  Can anyone give me the name of the organization that put names 
on stars. In other words you pay them a set fee and they will
put the name you want on one of the stars out there.  Is there
a Canadian organization that does the same thing?  I would like
an answer as soon as possible.

                           Thanks in advance
                           (watmath!echrzanowski)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #208    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 208

Today's Topics:
			     Re: Name change?
			Re: Night Launching - (nf)
			  Solar/Vegan/... panels
			     Re: naming stars
		      Question about fusion in stars
			     Shuttle Landings
		  Re: The name of our sun is Sol. - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Sep 83 11:35:41-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name change?

In all the debate about changing the name that has gone on so many
times, one thing was never pointed out.  Keeping the columbia name
means that new members of the net will constantly be asking why we
kept the name, thus starting up the debate again.

This will never cease.  While it is nice to have a name that honours
the first shuttle, this is understood only to people who have read
the group for a long time.  With current net growth, this is a small
portion of the readers.    The rest of the names on the net are
designed to be descriptive (except net.general and net.test) but this
one is way off, and we will keep having this discussion as long as
new people don't understand the name.

	Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304

------------------------------

Date: 3 Sep 83 21:37:52-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!ima!stevel @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Night Launching - (nf)

This was discussed in net.columbia. The reason is that they want
to release the satillite during the longest daylight exposure
over India so the astronaunts can see what they are doing.

------------------------------

Date:     1 September 1983 1941-mst
From:     Kevin B. Kenny    <Kenny.OSNI @ SYSTEM-M.PHOENIX.HONEYWELL>
Subject:  Solar/Vegan/... panels
To:       Space-Enthusiasts @ MIT-MC

But "solar panels" includes not only photovoltaics but also
photochemical installations and even passive thermal ones.  How about
"radiant energy collectors" or "wrecks" for short?

lexically yours

k**2 (Kenny.OSNI%PCO-MULTICS@CISL-Service-Multics)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 83 10:17:38 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: naming stars
In-reply-to: echrzanowski's message of 2 Sep 83 11:29:34-PDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

There are several organizations that have jumped on the star naming 
bandwagon.  I have intentionally lost the addresses of two that I once 
had.  Most authorities consider them a sham and ripoff.  The IAU (the 
body that by international agreement has the authority to name 
astronomical objects) has objected to these new organizations, but 
has no power to stop them.  What they do is take a star catalog, and 
for about $30 - $50, write your chosen name next to one of the index 
numbers identifying a star, then copyright that piece of paper.  Some 
companies even give you a certificate and/or a map with your star 
circled.  They won't run out of stars soon.  There is at least one 
uncopyrighted catalog of stars with matching maps listing over 1/4 
million stars.

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 6 September 1983 21:09 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Question about fusion in stars
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Betelgeuse and Antares are both red supergiants. News stories say they
may go supernova within the next 1000 years. What stage in development
are they in? Obviously they have burned their Hydrogen, but are they
still burning Helium, or have they burned out their Helium too and now
burning their Carbon or Iron now?

Deneb is a very bright star, 1600 lightyears away yet first magnitude.
That makes it brighter than Betelgeuse or Antares intrinsically. On
the HR (Hertsprung&Russell (sp?)) diagram Deneb isn't main sequence,
it's somewhere between red supergiant and main-sequence blue-giant,
sort of a white supergiant. What is its status and ultimate fate?

By the way, casual observation with binoculers shows many red or
orange stars visible to the nakid eye (it takes binoculers to get
enough light to show color, but just the eye to see it as a spot of
light). Yet only a few of them (about twenty or so) are main-sequence
red or orange dwarfs, according to the listing in Sky&Telescope. Are
the rest of them all far-away red giants and red supergiants?

------------------------------

Date:  6-Sep-83 22:46 PDT
From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc. Cupertino, CA  <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: Shuttle Landings
To: space@mit-mc
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-34762>

I was one of the 2000 folks at Edwards lastnight.  Very interesting!  The base 
was darkened of all bright lights so as to avoid confusing the shuttle crew.  
The air above the dry lake bed was completely still.  The double sonic boom was 
the loudest of the 4 landing I have been to.  It reverberated for quite a few 
seconds.

The runway seemed to be further away than usual, my guess 1/2 to 1 mile away 
from the viewing area.  After the sonic boom, all eyes and ears were on the 
night sky.  About 15 seconds before touchdown we could actually hear the shuttle
gliding thru the air.  It was a very "spectacular" sound.  I assume that was the
100-ton spacecraft changing from it's 20 degree glideslope to it's 1.5 degree 
which is only 135 feet above the runway.  It was only in view for 20 seconds as 
it raced down the runway.  

The few number of people was such a change from the usual masses.  I am refering
to the special guests as opposed to the general public.

Does anyone know which future launches are scheduled for landings at Edwards?  
And what are the dates?   Thanks,  

--Bi<<

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 83 17:54:20-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: The name of our sun is Sol. - (nf)

Re: the Galaxy, the Milky Way, and Everything.
{~
And don't forget: the name of my neighborhood is "the Neighborhood", with
a capital 'N'.  And the name of my family is "the Family".  And if you
don't quite agree, members of the Family will fit you with concrete foot-
wear, and relocate you to the River.
~}
	Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)

P.S.  To members of the REAL Family: I'M KIDDING!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #209    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 209

Today's Topics:
			     Re: naming stars
		     STS-8 Termed a Complete Success
			       **LANDING**
			       Landing Set
			     Name of the sun
		   The name of our local galaxy cluster
		       Re: Space and Overpopulation
		 Truly becomes Commander of Space Navy  
			      The Discovery
		    Plans for Discovery and Columbia  
			  naming stars - ripoff
	Re: NASA's exposure via the media and the future of space
	   Only Small Problems on Shuttle -- Insat 1B Has More
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 83 12:19:18-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: naming stars
In-Reply-To: Article watmath.5688

Please, everyone, be warned:  The outfit that "names" stars after
you for a fee has no more right to do so than I do.  This is
a commercial business that has a copy of the Smithsonian Star
Catalog, and for a modest fee they will send you a nice
certificate that says that "star number such-and-so is now called
Barry's star";  The certificate is worthless and means nothing.
The organization, of course, keeps your money.  I consider it
a rip-off (like those "genealogy researchers" we heard about
a few months ago).

There is only one organization that has the right to name objects
in the Heavens.  It is the International Astronomical Union, and
is the organization that speaks for all the world's astronomers.
It has a Commission on Astronomical Nomenclature whose responsibility
is to name objects, features on planets and so on.

There is one good way to get your name legitimately on a heavenly
body: Discover a comet (and be one of the first to inform Dr.
Brian Marsden at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,
Cambridge, Mass.)  This is easier said than done.

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (Snail)
	ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill   (uucp)
	utastro!bill@utexas-11   (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 83 11:10:04-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-8 Termed a Complete Success

NASA today said that STS-8 was 100% successful, and one flight
controller said it was the ''best flight yet.''  The Challenger
ended its 6 day, 1 hour, 8 minute, and 40 second flight at 0340
EDT this morning at Rogers Dry Lakebed, EAFB.

Before the landing, the crew turned their cameras on and took
the first ever unbroken movie of a complete pass around the
Earth.  Earlier in the day, one of the shuttle's computers
became out of sync with a twin; 40 minutes later, mission control
put it back on track but gave it secondary status for the
landing.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 83 3:47:35-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: **LANDING**

Right on time, at 0340 EDT this morning, the Challenger
made a picture perfect landing at EAFB.  Just before landing,
coverage of the shuttle was picked up with infrared cameras,
and we were shown those pictures for the first time.  Real
images were attained just a few seconds before the actual
touchdown.  If only the anchorpeople would shut up, if only
when the mission control people were talking...

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 83 23:26:08-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Landing Set

In just over four hours, at 0340 EDT, the Challenger is
scheduled to land at EAFB.  All the major TV networks
plan live coverage, although NASA says there won't be
much to see until the shuttle is about 50 feet above the
landing area.

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 7 September 1983 12:00:57 EDT
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: space@mc
Subject: Name of the sun
Message-ID: <1983.9.7.15.58.27.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

The word "sun" means no more and no less than "sol" or "helios."  It's just
that some people won't use a name that is not Latin or Greek.  People
from the Vegan system won't object to our calling the sun Sun, just as we
don't object to the Aleuts calling themselves Aleuts ("the people"), or to
the Germans calling themselves Deutsch (which came from Diot, "the people").

------------------------------

Date:  7-Sep-83 09:37 PDT
From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: The name of our local galaxy cluster
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-KIRK-34872>
In-reply-to: EXT-OTA-347MF

In 1973 I implemented the shell of a "Whole Universe Catalog" using the mouse to
demo, among other things, zooming through the universe down into an atom in the 
planet earth (a video tape is viewable at the Stanford University Communications
Library).  I had a name problem out at the galaxy cluster level.  It seems all 
of the clusters in the Atlas of the Universe had names but our own.  So I called
ours the "Dairy cluster".  "Local cluster" was too anthropocentric I guess.  
Ever since then, (when I give a demo) I wonder if there is an official name for 
our local galaxy cluster.

 -- kirk

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 1983 8:54-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL
To: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC
Cc: space@mit-mc
Subject: Re: Space and Overpopulation
Via:  Usc-Cse; 07 Sep 83 09:43:14

So we have to move 100 million people into space every year?  So what?
That's only a fraction of the current number of people who ride
airliners every year.  It will use lots of energy?  The amount of
energy needed to put people in orbit with currently feasible technology
is equal to the amount of energy used by the average American in
several months.  Once a person is off the earth they will use no energy
here, so the payback is very fast (at least for Americans).  One would
also hope that once millions of people are in space we'd be getting
lots of cheap energy from solar power satellites, and that half a
century (or whatever) of R&D will reduce the cost even more.

No one ever said that space colonization will allow infinite
exponential growth.  It will allow living space to expand much faster
than population can, because we'll be manufacturing it.  The standard
of living should shoot upwards.  All the evidence suggests that birth
rates will then decline.

There is an excellent argument for the population to be as large as
possible:  the more people there are, the faster discoveries and
inventions will be made.  What is holding back science today is mostly
a lack of scientists.  A population of 4.7 trillion will produce
interesting discoveries, excellent works of art, clever inventions,
entertaining films, etc. a thousand times faster than we do today.

------------------------------

Date: 07 Sep 83  1119 PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW@SU-AI>
Subject: Truly becomes Commander of Space Navy  
To:   space@MIT-MC

a059  0500  07 Sep 83
PM-Truly,220
Astronaut Named Head of Naval Space Command
    SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - Richard H. Truly, a Navy captain whose
first command was aboard the latest flight of space shuttle
Challenger, is leaving the astronaut corps to take charge of the newly
organized Naval Space Command.
    In a joint announcement Tuesday, the Navy and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration said the 45-year-old former test
pilot will take over the Naval Space Command on Oct. 1 when the
organization formally starts operations in Dahlgren, Va.
    He will become the first astronaut to return to naval service in the
25-year history of NASA.
    Asked in a telephone interview if it was hard to leave space flight,
Truly said, ''You bet it was.''
    But the new job was described by a NASA official as ''a good career
move'' for Truly, who spent almost 18 years as an astronaut and made
two space flights.
    ''This will be my first Navy command,'' said Truly, who served as a
pilot and a flight instructor before becoming an astronaut.
    The Naval Space Command organization was announced by Navy Secretary
John Lehman on June 15 as a counterpart of the Air Force Space
Command. The command will include the naval space surveillance system
with headquarters at Dahlgren; the naval astronautics group at Point
Mugu, Calif.; and elements supporting the fleet satellite
communications system.
    
ap-ny-09-07 0801EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 83 11:52 PDT
From: BollenG.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: The Discovery
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.Arpa
cc: BollenG.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

    EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - The third space shuttle, Discovery,
is nearly completed and is to begin flying next year. With Challenger
and Discovery in operation, and Columbia in reserve, the space agency
plans 11 missions in 1984, compared with four this year.

------------------------------

Date: 07 Sep 83  1118 PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW@SU-AI>
Subject: Plans for Discovery and Columbia  
To:   space@MIT-MC

n099  1939  06 Sep 83
AM-SHUTTLE
With Challenger Safely Back, All Eyes Turn to Discovery
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service
    EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - As technicians serviced the space
shuttle Challenger here after its six-day flight, workers at a nearby
plant were putting the finishing touches on the third shuttle, the
Discovery, which is set to be rolled out next month and to begin
flying next year.
    With the Challenger and the Discovery both in operation, and the
first shuttle, the Columbia, in reserve, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration plans 11 missions in 1984, as against four this
year.
    The Rockwell International Corp., the prime contractor, expects to
roll out the Discovery from its hangar in Palmdale, Calif., on Oct.
1, the 25th anniversary of the space agency's formation.
    The winged spaceship, which is the size of a DC-9 jetliner, will be
towed here, a journey of 30 miles by highway. And then, a week or two
later, it is to be ferried to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida
atop a Boeing 747 to undergo final processing and inspection.
    The Discovery's first mission is scheduled for May 7, 1984. For at
least a year after that, the Discovery and the Challenger are to fly
alternate missions. The Columbia, meanwhile, is being prepared for a
mission to begin Oct. 28 and then could remain out of service for
nearly two years.
    Space agency officials are studying a plan to ''mothball'' the
Columbia, which flew the first five shuttle missions, at the Kennedy
center and to use many of its components for spare parts to support
the other two vehicles. It would be kept ready, however, as a backup
vehicle in case either of the other two ran into serious problems.
    Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, chief of NASA's shuttle program,
emphasized that no decision had been made to store the Columbia after
its October mission. However, he said that the program was suffering
from a shortage of some critical spare parts, which he attributed to
tight budgets in the late 1970s.
    An inspection of the Challenger Tuesday indicated that it would have
need of few new parts, if any. At a news conference here, Herman K.
Widick, ground operations manager for the shuttle at the Kennedy
Space Center, reported that the spaceship survived its six days in
orbit in better shape than a shuttle did on any previous flight.
     Widick said only 27 of the craft's 31,000 heat-shielding tiles
appeared to need replacement because of damage in the liftoff or
re-entry. A few of the craft's small maneuvering thrusters, which
developed minor leaks in the flight, would also have to be replaced.
    Continuing problems with leaks and other malfunctions of the
shuttle's toilet will be investigated before the next mission,
General Abrahamson said. The unit will probably be removed and
shipped back to the manufacturer, the General Electric Co. in King of
Prussia, Pa.
    The Challenger is scheduled to be ferried back to the Kennedy Space
Center this weekend, where it will be inspected more carefully and
prepared for its next flight in January.
    Capt. Richard H. Truly, commander of the eighth shuttle flight, was
named Tuesday as the first commander of the Naval Space Command,
which will consolidate the Navy's operations in space communications,
navigation, surveillance and other space activities.
    The appointment, which will take effect Oct. 1, was announced in
Washington by Adm. James D. Watkins, chief of naval operations, and
James M. Beggs, the administrator of NASA. The Naval Space Command
will be based in Dahlgren, Va.
    
nyt-09-06-83 2239edt
***************

------------------------------

Date: 8 September 1983 02:46 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  naming stars - ripoff
To: Lynn.es @ PARC-MAXC
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

It would seem that writing somebody's name on a star chart and
copyrighting that sheet of paper would prevent anyone from making
copies of that chart&name or of forging it by writing or printing the
name again on another clone of that original chart. Thus it would be
illegal to include that star with that name on any published star
chart. That would seem to be just the opposite of what somebody wants
when heesh has a star named after hir, namely requiring makers of star
charts to include that name for that star.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 83 11:37:47-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!louie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: NASA's exposure via the media and the future of space
In-Reply-To: Article <4840@sri-arpa.UUCP>

I agree with the idea of a 'space' channel on a cable TV system.  I once had
the pleasure to watch a shuttle launch from a NASA control room which had the
NASA video and audio feed.  It was quite a difference not having to listen to
the constant babble of network newspersons who feel a need to keep words
flowing from their mouths, no matter what they say.  Heck, I'd even PAY real
MONEY for such a service!


        Louis A. Mamakos

	Internet:  louie@cvl.arpa
	CSNet:     louie.cvl@umcp-cs
	uucp:      ..!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!louie
        phone:     (301) 454-2946
        Snail Mail: 
                   Computer Science Center - Systems Staff
                   University of Maryland
                   College Park, MD   20742
-- 
Louis A. Mamakos

Internet: louie@cvl.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 83 7:20:25-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Only Small Problems on Shuttle -- Insat 1B Has More

NASA yesterday said that STS-8 experienced only 18 minor anomalies,
the fewest of any shuttle flight so far.  Most of those had to do
with the ever-failing toilets.

Meanwhile, India says that the Insat-1B satellite launched by
the shuttle has failed to fully deploy its solar panels.  Engineers
at an Indian ground station yesterday succeeded in partially
unfolding the array, and they are working with people from Ford
Aerospace, manufacturer of the satellite, to get the array fully
deployed.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #210    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 210

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Techno-philosophy
			    night landing fuss
			     Re: Name change?
			      Re: gold disk
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     7 September 1983 2023-mst
From:     Kevin B. Kenny    <Kenny.OSNI @ SYSTEM-M.PHOENIX.HONEYWELL>
Subject:  Re: Techno-philosophy
To:       Space-enthusiasts @ MIT-MC

Bruce Hamilton's comments that expansion into space can have little
impact on the population problems of the Earth are quite believable and
seem convincing at first.  There are, however, counterarguments which he
apparently overlooks.

The most obvious assumption is that the scale of the project is entirely
infeasible.  He quotes an out-migration figure of 300K persons/day as
incredible.  In fact, commercial aviation deals with problems of that
scale as a matter of course; check the passenger loads for the major
airlines.  Is it unreasonable to expect that space technology after half
a century of development will have reached a comparable capability?
(Admittedly, I'm considering only passengers at present; however, the
fact that something like half that number of people move [change
permanent residence] every day within the US alone [!] suggests that a
comparable amount of cargo capacity is also within reason.)

As far as constructing habitats for that many people goes, remember that
some fixed fraction of the productivity of those already in space will
be devoted to the task.  That's an exponential curve, too!

His more fundamental argument about unrestricted exponential growth is
valid, of course.  Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that
exponential growth (and "boom-and-bust" cycles) is not the only, nor
even the primary pattern of population growth.  I'll do some reading to
refresh my memory on this topic, and report on it later.

He then goes on in the next paragraph to define the "optimum" population
as the minimum needed to provide today's economies of scale in the
production of goods and services.  What makes the minimum level
necessarily preferable?  It seems to me that defining the optimum as the
maximum level achievable without seriously degrading the quality of life
is at least as valid.  Clearly the density of Manhattan is unacceptable
to most, but is there conclusive evidence that the relative sparseness
of Colorado (for example) is preferable to the density of Denmark or
Holland?

/k**2 (Kenny.OSNI%PCO-Multics@CISL)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 83 8:26:27-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!utah-cs!arizona!budd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: night landing fuss

        About a year ago I had a conversation at KSC with some of the IBM
people from Houston who wrote the software for the shuttle.  They indicated
that the software could land the shuttle totally automatically, that the
astronauts could just sit there and watch, if they wanted to.  However, the
astronauts generally didn't like this, so as a compromise the software
folks let them have control for the last 30 seconds or so (as i understood,
just when the craft broke through the clouds and was in visual sight of the
landing area).  Actually I think they still don't have control, the
computer just has a range of acceptable values for things like the degree
of inclination (is there a technical word for keeping the nose up to
increase drag? )  and will let them play with variables a bit, so it SEEMS
they are in control.  Actually I believe all commands go through the computer
anyway, and the computer (or computers, given the redundancy) must "ok"
them before it (they) will act.  Given this, all the fuss about a night
landing seems somewhat silly.  The computer doesn't care if its dark out!

------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 83 14:56:25-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!nsc!chongo @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name change?
In-Reply-To: Article <448@ihuxk.UUCP>

what about changing the name to net.space.shuttle?

chongo /\../\

------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 83 16:11:53-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!schneids @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: gold disk

   I realize that the gold disk was included in hopes of finding other

intelligent life; but, what if that intelligent life is a conquering

race like the Klingons??!!  OR WORSE - what if they were like the

Zylons on Battlestar Galactica and think that all humans should be

destroyed??!!

                Schneids

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #211    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 211

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Name of the sun
		       Shuttle in Superb Condition
			      Re: gold disk
		      Re: NASA Goals and Objectives
		     Re: Shuttle in Superb Condition
			  Re: Name of the moon?
		    Truly to Head Naval Space Command
			     The Perfect Tan
			     The Gold Plates
			  Re: night landing fuss
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 83 7:22:40-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name of the sun
In-Reply-To: Article trwspp.98

>When we discuss the "name of the Sun" or "Snickers" or that
>stuff, what is the name of the body that officially sanctions
>these names?

	>Not afraid to ask a dumb question.

	>Mike Urban

Not a dumb question, as my previous posting shows.  The International
Astronomical Union's Commission of Astronomical Nomenclature is
responsible for all "official" names of astronomical bodies.  However,
the names "Copernicus" for the Sun and "Bruno" for the galaxy are
to my knowledge only suggestions.  "Snickers" is a joke.

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (Snail)
	ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill   (uucp)
	utastro!bill@utexas-11   (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 83 7:21:50-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle in Superb Condition

The shuttle Challenger came back with the least damage of any
shuttle flight so far, NASA said yesterday.  Twenty-seven tiles
(!) have small nicks in them, and two of the 44 maneuvering
rockets have very minor leaks in them.  And, of course, the
toilets broke again.

NASA currently plans to have the Challenger leave EAFB this
Saturday.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 83 10:00:56-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!FLAIRMAX!ellis @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: gold disk

It's hard to believe a gold disc on an object crawling through space to be
a reasonable way of finding intelligent life!

Far more believable a motive is to leave some civilized relic of ourselves
after we blow this place to smithereens.

-michael

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 83 9:43:06-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!FLAIRMAX!ellis @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: NASA Goals and Objectives

Any age discrimination (in favor of young graduates) on the part of
NASA is particularly saddening in light of the tragic careers of
many older aerospace engineers who were dumped 10 years ago after
they landed a human on the moon.

I saw with many of these my first year out of college performing
mundane work at truly disgusting government jobs they had little
option but to accept. Many shattered dreams back then...

-michael

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 83 15:03:41-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxz!halle1 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle in Superb Condition
In-Reply-To: Article <2197@alice.UUCP>

Did the toilets break because they couldn't decide whether the lid
went up or down, or was it because the TP was hung backwards?    :)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 83 13:36:02-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!gummo!whuxlb!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!mprvaxa!johans @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name of the moon?
In-Reply-To: Article <4526@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <1509@randvax.ARPA>

Here we go again.  My bid goes for ROVER.

Why, you may ask?

Well ROVER has so many conotations. ie:

In the OLDEN days, many of the celestial bodies had referances to animals
 and the moon follows the EARTH much like a good dog is suposed to.

or;

the moon is allways TRAVELLING (ROVING) through-out our skies 


etc.,etc.,etc.,......

------------------------------

Date:  8 Sep 1983 1444-EDT
From: J. Scott Hamilton <HAMMY at MIT-EECS>
To: space at MIT-MC

    Could you please take off Hammy@Mit off the mailing list.  I'm not sure
    which machine it is being sent to.  Thanks.

						Hammy
-------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1983  16:23 EDT
Message-ID: <[MIT-OZ].OAF. 9-Sep-83 16:23:14>
From: OAF@MIT-OZ
To:   space@MIT-OZ

Is there a reason why announcements of the class of when the shuttle
lifted off, when it is supposed to land, and similar stuff which can
be gleaned from any wire service or newpaper must go out over this
mailing list?

Thanks,
Oded

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 83 7:22:44-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Truly to Head Naval Space Command

NASA said yesterday that Dick Truly, just back from STS-8, will
head the new Naval Space Command, due to start operations on
1 October.  The assignment makes Truly the first Navy astronaut
to return to Naval service.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 1983 21:35-PDT
Sender: WARD@USC-ISIF
Subject: The Perfect Tan
From: Craig E. Ward <Ward at USC-ISIF>
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF] 8-Sep-83 21:35:21.WARD>

The October 83 issue of Discover contains a feature relating a
current controversy in San Diego.  It seems that the city is
planning on installing high pressure sodium lamps throughout the
city and not the low pressure sodium kind.  This would have the
unfortunate side effect of severely hampering the operations of
the Palomar observatory due to the enlarged spectral lines the
lamps would emit.

The arguments for using LPS lamps are that they are cheaper to
operate and cast light over a wider area.  They would also have
only a minor affect on the observatory.  The only argument for
the HPS is that people look better.  (The LPS can make peoples'
complexions look somewhat sallow).

Things like this make me wonder about the values of this society.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 83 11:14:00-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!ima!ism70!chris (Chris Kostanick) @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: The Gold Plates

I don't think that the gold plates with information about us are 
a significant danger.  The reason is that they are moving very 
slowly compared to the distances they must cross.  They will be
in the near neighborhood of the sun for thousands of years to 
come.  Anyone who is close enough to find them would have already 
seen the radio emisions of earth.  (We are quite bright in the 
radio spectrum, and the spectra is decidedly non-random).  Thus 
anyone who could get the disks already knows about us.

We only have to worry about attack during our window of vulnerability.
The window of vulnerability for a new species is the period 
between the time they start doing things that register at a 
distance (radio, tv, etc) and the time they get tough enough to 
take care of themselves.  

Since i expect that we will be ready for anybody within 500 or so years
(or extinct by our own hand), it would surprise me greatly if there
was anyone close enough to find the plates, who hadn't already
spotted us.

There are only 2 or 3 stars within about 15 light years that look
to be possible abodes of life. All the others are either too large
(and hence don't last long enough) or are too dim, and have too
small a water zone. I don't have my list of the 50 nearest stars
handy, but the Alpha Centauri system, and 61 Cygni are the ones
that stick in my mind.

It seems very probable to me that there are many other intellegent
space-faring cultures out there, but they are probably pretty far
apart. I doubt if we will encounter any other space-faring groups
until we have interstellar capability ourselves, and have visited
some of the more likely places.

		chris

--------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 83 13:43:49-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!drux3!druxu!sef @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: night landing fuss
In-Reply-To: Article <4528@arizona.UUCP>

I believe the proper name for increasing drag by keeping the nose
up is "Dynamic Braking".

			Scott E. Farleigh
			AT&TIS Denver

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Sep-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #212    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 212

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V3 #211    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat 10 Sep 83 03:22:51-PDT
From: Henry W. Miller <Miller@SRI-NIC>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #211    
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
cc: Miller@SRI-NIC
In-Reply-To: Message from "Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>" of Sat 10 Sep 83 03:03:00-PDT

	Actually, we are already doomed.  Somewhere, out there, a
few parsecs from here, are a race of beings that resemble the
"Jack in the Box" clown.  And they have seen us waste their
kinsman.  They are coming for us.


	"The Clowns Strike Back"

-HWM
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Sep-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #213    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 213

Today's Topics:
			       MAILING LIST
		       Planets, Kidsicles, Galileo
		   Star-naming commercial organization
			  Factual announcements
			    Columbia benched?
			   Re: Name of the sun
			NAS Opposes Space Stations
	     Re: NASA's exposure via the media and th - (nf)
			     Re: Name change?
			  Challenger Back at KSC
		       Insat-1B Deploys Solar Array
			Re: The Gold Plates - (nf)
			  night landing question
			   Re: Shuttle Landings
			 SPACE Digest V3 #212    
		       Re: Space and Overpopulation
			  Re: Columbia benched?
			Re:  "Naval Space Command"
				 Re: none
			  Re: Columbia benched?
			  Re: Columbia benched?
				 re:none
			      space colonies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 1983 2223-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL>
Subject: MAILING LIST
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS@MIT-MC
cc: Andromeda: ;, tcs@USC-ECL


PLEASE DELETE ME FROM THE SACE MAILING
LIST.

TCS@USC-ECLA
-------

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 14 September 1983 17:18:52 EDT
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mc
Subject: Planets, Kidsicles, Galileo
Message-ID: <1983.9.14.21.11.45.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER>


n537  0304  13 Sep 83
BC-SCIBRIEFS-09-13
    (c) 1983 Boston Globe (Independent Press Service)
    
    Astronomers have made three key discoveries this summer on stars and
their companions, in addition to the much-heralded discovery of a
possible solar system around the star Vega, according to a report in
Science News. And the Vega finding was independently confirmed by
University of Texas astronomer Paul M. Harvey, using a telescope
aboard a NASA-operated jet.
    Three astronomers from the U.S. Naval Observatory report that they
have made precise measurements showing that two other stars have
relatively small companions orbiting them. The scientists used
measurements of the ''wobble'' in the motion of two dim stars, called
VB8 and VB10, to deduce the existence of companions around those
stars.
    And one of the Naval Observatory astronomers, Robert Harrington,
also reported strong evidence that might help resolve a 20-year
controversy about whether a Jupiter-sized giant planet is in orbit
around Barnard's Star. According to Harrington, his data show clearly
that Barnard's Star does not have a giant companion.
    ---
    Six months after a fertilized, previously frozen embryo was
implanted in an Australian woman, her pregnancy ended in miscarriage.
There has not yet been a successful pregnancy involving a frozen
human embryo.
    An Australian research team led by Dr. Alan Trolunson reported that
a streptococcal infection led to a stillbirth at 23 weeks. Studies
showed the fetus was a girl, whose tissues all appeared normal,
according to the scientists.
    Manipulation of living embryos - including freezing them and
splitting them to obtain twins - is now routine in animals such as
cattle, pigs, and sheep. Frozen embryos can be stored for years.
    Scientists expect these techniques will be equally applicable to
human embryos.
    ---
    After being lifted 19 miles high by a balloon, and then dropped, the
Galileo Jupiter Probe successfully passed a test simulating part of
its mission into the atmosphere of the solar system's largest planet.
    The test, carried out high above the California desert, essentially
duplicated the spacecraft's entry through the outer fringes of
Jupiter's deep, thick atmosphere, according to officials at NASA's
Ames Research Center.
    The probe will be launched in 1986, and will be released in 1988
when the spacecraft carrying it reaches Jupiter.
    The main Galileo vehicle will stay in orbit around Jupiter. If all
goes as planned, the craft will use the gravitational pull from
Jupiter's largest moons to visit each in turn, taking close-up photos.

*******************

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 1983 1259-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Star-naming commercial organization
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: Space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]12-Sep-83 12:59:23.WMARTIN>

The following item appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of 12 Sep 83:

NOW, YOU TOO CAN BE A STAR

By Marylin Schwartz, c 1983, Dallas Morning News

If you've been wishing for the moon and the stars, here's an
update.

The moon is still out of reach.  But the stars can now be put on
your American Express card.

For just $35, an Illinois company will name a star in your honor.

"This is definitely for the person who has everything," explains
Jane Johnson, a spokesman for International Star Registry of
Northfield, Ill.  "You can even pick your own constellation.  We
have a copyright on the concept of designating stars with names
instead of numbers.  This includes about 400,000 stars in the
Northern Hemisphere."

Ms. Johnson says this means, 2000 years from now, explorers
could very well uncover the charting of the Eiseman Star.

This is not Eiseman named for a famous astrologer or even Eiseman
named for a famous philosopher.  This is Richard and Louise
Eiseman of Dallas.

"We were just thrilled when some friends surprised my husband and
me with our very own star for our anniversary," explains Mrs.
Eiseman.

International Star Registry makes a record of each star and then
sends detailed charts to the people whose names they designate.

"We also send a parchment proclaiming a star has been named in
your honor," says Ms. Johnson.  "You need a telescope to find
them.  That's why we stick to the Northern Hemisphere.  All our
stars can be sighted within the United States."

Ms. Johnson says astrologers have 26 different, more scientific
listings of star locations.

"There is a Smithsonian listing, a Czechoslovakian listing, a
Hungarian listing and so on," she says.  "We are all talking
about the same stars.  But we use names.  They use numbers."

She points out that even real-life stars like having a heavenly
star.

"Johnny Carson has a star named after him," she says.  "So do
Suzanne Pleshette, Barry Manilow, Dolly Parton, the late Shah of
Iran, Elvis Presley, Lucille Ball, Burt Reynolds, Calvin Klein,
Elton John, and all that television M*A*S*H gang."

She won't say who made the purchases.  That is confidential.

"But I can tell you that we reserve the constellation of
Andromeda for celebrites," she explains.  "The stars in Andromeda
just seem to shine brighter than anywhere else."

She says customers frequently request constellations that are
their birth signs.  Binary stars are also popular.  They are
recommended for lovers.

"That's because binary stars are actually two stars that revolve
around each other," she says.

Ms. Johnson explains that her organization always tries to be
creative in its recommendations.

For instance, the registry suggests that pilots might like the
Aquila constellation.  That's the sign of the eagle.  Dog lovers
like Canis Major and Canis Minor, the greater dog and the lesser
dog.

"For lawyers," she says, "we always recommend the Big Dipper."

***End of article***

So help me, that is what it said...  After typing this, I now
feel like a National Enquirer staffer.  Can you believe that a
for-real newspaper published this drivel?!?!?

I realize that some of the text makes no sense at all, but I
guess it fits in with the subject...
Note how "astrologers" is used instead of "astronomers" and
I still can't make head or tail of what explorers in 3983 are
doing when they "uncover the charting of the Eiseman Star"!

Regards, Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 1983 1132-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Factual announcements
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]12-Sep-83 11:32:25.WMARTIN>

I vote to continue the practice of posting basic info, such as
shuttle takeoff or landing times, etc., on this list.  Saying
that they can be "gleaned from any wire service or newspaper"
isn't an argument against this, but actually one FOR continuing
the practice.  The "gleaning" is what this list is for; to
collect and compile any and all on-line info (or anything anyone
is willing to take the time and effort to put on-line) related to
space or the space program.

Aside from what I see on these lists, I have no way to get
wire-service data on any of the computers on which I have
accounts, so I certainly appreciate getting that data from those
machines that have such links.

As for newspapers, with the current low visibility of the space
program, it is no simple matter of picking up any paper and
immediately finding specific data on these subjects.  Why go to
all the trouble of finding a paper (remember not everyone buys
those rags), dig through it and read every headline from pages one
through 23 until you find the shuttle item, and then find out
that they have edited away the specific data you are interested
in, in order to make room for another cigarette ad?

What could be more sensible than to take advantage of a
topic-oriented mailing list to include everything you can about
the topic?

My thanks to those who continue to post all the info they can on
any space-related subjects!

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 83 13:21:05-PDT (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: sri-unix!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!Pavel.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@CCA
Subject: Columbia benched?

From: Pavel.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
To: net-columbia@CORNELL

Sunday's New York Times had a tiny article mentioning that Columbia will
soon be benched for a period of about two years; NASA decided that they
had a 'surfeit' of shuttles for the amount of flights in the next two
years (11 in 1984 and 12 in 1985 as I recall).  This is very confusing
to me.  Could someone who knows please tell us exactly what's going on?
Specifically, I have the following questions:
	1) When is Columbia being benched and for how long?
	2) When are Atlantis and Discovery scheduled to come into service and
are they on-time?
	3) What flights are being flown by which shuttles (I'd like to know as
much about their schedules as I can, as far into the future as
possible).
	4) Is NASA still OK to make all four shuttles?
	5) And what about that company that wants to buy the fifth one?

If anyone knows these things, please post 'em, eh?

	Pavel Curtis

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 83 21:02:17-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name of the sun
In-Reply-To: Article <4548@sri-arpa.UUCP>

	It is appropriate to name our galaxy after Giordano Bruno and our
	sun after Copernicus, especially since Bruno was burned at the stake
	for holding these views while Copernicus just barely escaped this
	fate by dying before his book was published.

I am not sure about Bruno, but this comment about Copernicus is a common
misconception that is 100% wrong.  The reasons for the long delay in the
publication of Copernicus's book are complex, but there was no deliberate
intent to delay beyond his death.  What's more, the Church in general and
Church astronomers in particular thought quite highly of Copernicus's
ideas for some time thereafter.  (There is firm historical evidence for
this.)  

In fact, the Church of the time had no objection to unusual theories,
provided they were stated as *theories* and not as facts (unless truly
convincing proof was available), and provided that the discussion
avoided theological issues unless the participants were competent in
this tricky area.  And the Church was quite willing to alter its dogma
once the evidence was conclusive -- there was, after all, a precedent:
the Church once held that the Earth was flat, but this dogma had been
revised when solid proof of a round Earth became available.

Copernicus wisely stated his ideas as a theory, since there was no proof
to be had (simplicity of explanation was not proof, and it was many years
before the discovery of the Foucault pendulum supplied a phenomenon that
could not easily be explained by a geocentric theory), and he avoided
religious  issues.  Galileo, unfortunately, was not so cautious, and his
near-total lack of tact aggravated the situation until a confrontation was
inevitable.  Things sort of went downhill from there.

In fact, Copernicus's theory was not even strictly heliocentric.  His
book did *not* have the planets orbiting the Sun, but orbiting a point
that happened to be quite near the Sun.  This was an artifact of the
preoccupation with circular orbits and epicycles.  The jump to making
the Sun the center of the solar system was made not by Copernicus but by
his successors, although he is so often credited with it that if you
want to check on this you're going to have to go back to Copernicus's
book itself.

I don't belittle Copernicus's contribution, but if we're doing to name
something after him, we should do it in honor of what he *did* do and
not what he didn't.

If you want to know more about this, including dispelling still more
popular misunderstandings (about, for example, Galileo's trial), I
recommend Arthur Koestler's book "The Sleepwalkers".  I'm not impressed
with the other books of his that I have seen, but this one is first-rate.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 83 6:35:52-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: NAS Opposes Space Stations

The National Academy of Sciences, in a report released yesterday,
said it opposes NASA's plan for a manned space station in this
century, because it sees it as unnecessary.  The report goes on,
however, to say that a manned space station may become useful
early in the next century.  The committee who published the
report said they did not want funds drained from other programs
in order to complete the station.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 83 22:31:14-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!whaley @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: NASA's exposure via the media and th - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-484000:uiuccsb:15700001:000:192
uiuccsb!whaley    Sep 10 15:59:00 1983

When Voyager flew by, it was broadcast on channel 10 here, which
it seems to me was the nationwide "special event" channel for boxing
matches and whatnot.  If JPL can do that, perhaps NASA...

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 83 14:17:16-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!we13!burl!clyde!crc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Name change?
In-Reply-To: Article <5691@watmath.UUCP>

If you are woried obout people asking why do we call it net.*, why not call it
net.nasa ? everybody will understand it then.

I don't under stand why this group should be separate from net.space, but
I am not asking that it be merged...

floyd!clyde!crc

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 83 13:23:22-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Challenger Back at KSC

The Challenger returned to KSC yesterday, a day early, and was
quickly rolled back into the Orbiter Processing Facility.  The
shuttle was diverted from a planned refueling stop at Kelly
AFB, San Antonio, Texas, due to bad weather there; instead,
it stopped at Sheppard AFB, Wichita Falls, Texas, at 1130
EDT and took off for KSC at 1440 EDT, landing at KSC at 1857
EDT.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 83 6:52:07-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Insat-1B Deploys Solar Array

Ground engineers yesterday successfully deployed the solar
array of Insat-1B, deployed by the Challenger last week.
Earlier, the engineers turned the satellite so that the
hinges would be in the sun, and the temperature raise,
coupled with a re-sequencing of the firing procedure to
unfold the array, seems to have done the trick.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 83 0:01:06-EDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: The Gold Plates - (nf)

#R:ism70:-600:uicsl:11100015:000:270
uicsl!preece    Sep 12 09:25:00 1983

I surmise we'll go out and pick up the Pioneers as souvenirs for the
Smithsonian long before they run into anyone else. Either that or we'll
fall back to a condition in which we won't much care whether anyone else
finds them...

scott preece
pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 83 15:29:51-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!alberta!auvax!tech @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: night landing question



I ask this out of total ignorance.

I understand that the shuttle landed at night without lights.  Isn't it rather
dangerous to be making their final approach without navigation loghts?  I
would think that it is not impossible for some aircraft to be where it doesn't
belong at the wrong time.

Are there any efforts to design navigation lights, rotating beacons and such
that could survive one or more high speed atmosperic(?) tours?

Richard Loken

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 83 16:39:44-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Landings
In-Reply-To: Article <4916@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Very few future landings will be at EAFB.  STS-9 will land there,
because Spacelab is so heavy (they want to have a large margin for
error on the first Spacelab flight).  STS-10 (former STS-11) will
(or is scheduled to) be the first KSC landing.  If it is successful,
future landings will be at KSC (or VAFB, depending on where the
next launch will be), with EAFB dropping to backup status (as is
White Sands).

------------------------------

Date: 17 September 1983 23:14 EDT
From: Stewart Cobb <HSC @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  SPACE Digest V3 #212    
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of 11 Sep 83  0302 PDT from Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>

In regard to braking by keeping the nose up -- when an F-15 fighter
plane does this, it's called `aerobraking.'

--Stewart

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 83 12:29:40-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxm!gjphw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space and Overpopulation


   In this discussion of the use of space as a repository for the excess
 population of the Earth, I would like to argue that the technique of
 colonization has never succeeded before in reducing overpopulation.  Greek
 mythology holds that the Trojan wars were begun by the gods to reduce the
 world's population.  While the wars were long and costly, they failed to
 achieve this goal.  One historian that I heard said that one of the reasons
 for supporting the colonies in the New World was to relieve Europe of its
 overpopulation.  The less desirable were sent first.  This relief valve for
 Europe's population also failed at the time, and the population of the U.S.
 derived from slow and steady immigration and local reproduction.

   I have also heard that population pressure is the diving force for
 technology.  As the population density increases, different kinds (more
 complex and extensive) of technology are required to sustain it.  The "quality
 of life" can be related to the relationship between population density and
 technology.

   Colonization on Earth has not served as a relief valve for population
 pressures.  I don't see any reason why space colonization would succeed at
 this objective.


                                          Patrick Wyant
                                          AT&T Bell Labs (Naperville, IL)
                                          *!ihuxm!gjphw

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 83 10:32:28-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!drux3!druxu!sef @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Columbia benched?
In-Reply-To: Article <5263@cornell.UUCP>, <609@achilles.UUCP>

Ah yes.  The shuttle Columbia is now going to become a
"Hanger Queen"!  Anyone who has been in Naval Aviation or the
Air Farce will recognize the term. For the rest of you 
"Hanger Queen" means an airplane that always sits in the
hanger, has more parts "robbed" off of it than are on it.
Unfortunately when "Hanger Queens" are finally put back
together they usually have lots of problems for a long
period of time.  

Sounds as if NASA has some dumbass ex-sailor incharge of
shuttle maintenence.

			Scott E. Farleigh
			Dumbass ex-sailor (parachute rigger
					   noless)

------------------------------

	id AA15337; Sat, 17 Sep 83 21:43:28 PDT
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 83 21:43:28 PDT
From: research!alb@Berkeley
Message-Id: <8309180443.AA15337@ucbvax.ARPA>
To: DMRussell.PA%PA.PARC-MAXC.ARPA@Berkeley
Subject: Re:  "Naval Space Command"
Cc: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA, Stefik.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Like I said, Dick Truly has been named to head the new agency.
Other than that, I really know nothing about it.

Adam

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 83 9:44:51-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: none
In-Reply-To: Article <4975@sri-arpa.UUCP>

	I like having these announcements. They are short, succinct,
and factual. They are also much more timely than my local newspaper's
reporting (a small town paper called the "Washington Post"). Please
keep posting them.

					eric
					...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 83 13:12:13-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!crc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Columbia benched?
In-Reply-To: Article <609@achilles.UUCP>

WRONG! NASA and congress did not decide that shuttles need no repairs,
ROCKWELL has decided to build B-1 bombers in the shuttle assembly areas.

Complain to ROCKWELL and REGAN. only they have controll over this.

Nasa intends to steal subassemblies from Columbia to speed up assembly
of the other orbiters since ROCKWELL will have less facilities to do it.

I won't say what ROCKWELL management can do and where they can go...

(Info from Avaition Week.)
floyd!clyde!crc

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 83 11:01:31-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!swatt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Columbia benched?
In-Reply-To: Article clyde.149

I seem to recall about a year ago that a private consortium had gotten
together and proposed to NASA that they *buy* an extra shuttle ('extra'
in terms of what NASA had proposed to build at that time), and lease
it back to NASA on a per-flight basis.  I don't remember who all was
in on it, but I think Boeing was one of them.

What ever happened to this?

	- Alan S. Watt

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 83 3:27:52-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!crm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: re:none

I for one like! to get the announcements that "can be gleaned from any
wire service" -- I see them this way!

If someone is good enough to enter them, I can only be grateful (sp?).

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 83 14:49:07-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!phs!jtb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: space colonies

   Anyone who is interested in the question of space as a possible solution
to the population problem and the question of obtaining natural resources
from space for use in space colonies or on earth should read:

  THE HIGH FRONTER by Gerald K. O' Neil (sp?)  (non-fiction)
  2082             by Gerald K. O' Neil        (a novel)
  SPACE INDUSTRY (title?) by G. Harry Stine    (non-fiction)

All three are excellent sources.  One of the main points made in these books
is that space colonies could be built with essentially current technology,
 O' Neil in particular has described clever solution to several potential
problems (and is currently working actively to develop the necessary
equipment).

Relevant to the question of reducing population by sending people into space
it is important to remember that the potential for population increase
is concentrated in one subset of the population specifically teenagers.  If
most of the people sent were young people who had not begun to have children
the effect on the future growth rate of the population would be large
relative to the number sent.

Jose Torre-Bueno
decvax!duke!phs!jtb

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Sep-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #214    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 214

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Columbia benched?
			  Re: Columbia benched?
			  Galileo's tactlessness
		 Re: Re: Space and Overpopulation - (nf)
		   Star-naming commercial organization
		       Re: Space and Overpopulation
			  Re: Columbia benched?
		       Re: Space and Overpopulation
			    Re: overpopulation
	   re: Interplanetary Migration for population control
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 83 18:04:30-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Columbia benched?

Now wait a minute, NO ONE decided that shuttles don't need
repairs.  Anyone who thinks this is totally irresponsible.
There has not been a shuttle flight yet after which nothing
needed at least minor repairs or replacement (granted, though,
that the recent flight came back in the best shape of all
previous ones).  NASA and Congress both recognize this.
If you want to put the blame on someone, put it on the OMB,
who doesn't think it necessary to provide money for all the
programs we want or need (and Reagan, for that matter, keeps
preaching that we should have the best space program around,
yet he offers no money).

Enough, I do not mean to flame, especially here (at least
net.columbia should be kept clean of things like that!)
In any case, NASA has said that with Discovery due off the
line and in space by this coming spring and Atlantis the
year after, they will have enough shuttles with three to
meet their launch schedule (11 launches are planned for
1984), what with shorter turnarounds and all.  Obviously,
four active shuttles are better than three, but we can't
have everything we want.

I've already written my congressman asking him to vote
for more money for a fifth shuttle and also to look into
the prospect of mass producting shuttles.  If you feel as
I do, I suggest you do the same.

Adam

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 83 9:54:46-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxa!achilles!smb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Columbia benched?

One item I saw about grounding Columbia is that they want to cannibalize
it for spare parts!  Yes, folks, in their infinite budget-cutting wisdom,
Congress and NASA decided that space shuttles don't need repairs.  So,
at a time when the shuttle is booked solid for the rest of the decade,
with the military taking almost half the flights, NASA may have to ground
one of their working shuttles to keep the others flying.   *sigh*

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 83 7:44:24-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxr!lew @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Galileo's tactlessness

I read "The Sleepwalkers" some time ago and also recommend it highly.
Part of the reason I liked it was that Koestler freely admitted that
much of what he said (about Galileo in particular) was strongly
colored by his feelings about the events. This allowed me to disagree
with him without having to suffer the frustration of not being able to
jump into the book and argue with him.

Regarding Galileo, I recall that Koestler stated at the outset that he
found Galileo, "wholly and frighteningly modern". This is an interesting
assesment, which bears some contemplation.

Henry Spencer made a number of statements aimed at pointing out the
Church's enlightened tolerance of debate on theoretical matters, under
the quite reasonable restriction that everybody had to agree that they
didn't really believe any of it. Of course, Bruno waxed a little too
enthusiastic about his ideas so the Church demonstrated its rhetorical
adroitness by burning him at the stake. Galileo was 36 years old at
the time. His "total lack of tact" is even more remarkable when
one considers this circumstance.

		Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 83 19:34:48-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!krueger @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: Space and Overpopulation - (nf)

	I doubt that proliferation of technology would increase linearly
with population.  To do so would imply that communications efforts increase
quadratically (at least).  Scientists would also have to cope with the
ever-increasing flood of information.  In any case, population growth cannot
exceed its ecology's ability to handle it (extensive though it may be)
without serious consequences.  The topic of agriculture comes to mind.
Food might be cultivated in space, but basic raw materials are required,
like fertilizer and perhaps soil.  Certainly population could not grow
unbounded (not that this was suggested) without consuming something besides
the earth's resources.  An intriquing subject, though.  I would like to see
more discussions about future life in space.

						Jonathan Krueger
						U of IL
				...pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!krueger

------------------------------

Date: 18 September 1983 13:11 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Star-naming commercial organization
To: WMartin @ OFFICE-3

Sigh, the ripoff continues.
By the way, you can't get a copyright on a concept, only on a specific
writing which describes it. The FTC should be told about that
misleading advertising.

------------------------------

Date: 18 September 1983 13:30 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Space and Overpopulation
To: ihnp4!ihuxm!gjphw @ UCB-VAX

This is not a complete answer, but whereas on Earth the habitable
area (or volume) roughly doubled at each major new discovery ("New World"
for example), in space we suddenly have several orders of magnitude
more habitable area (or volume). This may constitute a qualative
change in the relationship between population and habitat which could
break the overpopulated-poverty cycle (overpopulated --> nearly
everybody poor --> gotta have lots of children so maybe one will
survive --> more overpopulation).

------------------------------

Date: 18 September 1983 13:34 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Columbia benched?
To: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!crc @ UCB-VAX

Damn. So not only is the B-1 bomber diverting funds that could go to
building a space station and a lunar mining base, but it's diverting
workspace for shuttle repairs! I think I'll write to my Congressman.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 83 10:23:46-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space and Overpopulation
In-Reply-To: Article <529@ihuxm.UUCP>

It might have little effect on the population of the earth, but the density
of population in space could be much less than the population on earth.
(if you do not like it, off with your singleship and mine the asteroids...
:-) )

Personally, I find Toronto too populated. i could never live in Hong Kong.
I wonder what the effect of having people around all the time does to
thought in Hong Kong.

laura creighton 
utcsstat!laura

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 83 10:52:00-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: overpopulation

	Space Colonization will probably not solve the overpopulation
problem unless you force people off at gun point. While I have no
doubt that there are more than enought people who are willing to
colonize space, getting massive numbers of Earthers to move off is
not likely. 
	What is more likely is that the heavy, environmentally
hazardous industries will find it economical to move off planet.
In addition, the communication/information explosion can reduce 
the amount of ground travel necessary and free people to live
and work away from cities. Both of these changes will make the 
Earth a more desirable place to live.
	If we don't blow ourselves into subatomic goo the future
can be better for both the colonies and the Earth. That is the 
real rational for going out and builting them.

					Fred
					AT&T CP

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 83 20:46:59-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!eagle!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!u1100a!u1100s!dad @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: re: Interplanetary Migration for population control

Several people have recently posted articles arguing that since
commercial aviation is able to move more than 300K people per day,
it should be possible to have an out migration from Earth of the
same magnitude.  One significant problem with this line of reasoning
is that the vehicles used to transport commercial aviation passengers
one day are still around to transport more passengers the next day.
In an out bound migration, the vehicles used to transport the passengers
are gone from the system once they are used.  (I am talking about the
interplanetary vehicles, not the shuttles used to move the passengers
to Earth orbit.)  I would hate to think what would happen to the Earth's
supplies of spaceship building materials (e.g. titanium) after 100 years
of sending out thousands of ships each day.

		Doug Davey    Bell Labs    ihnp4!u1100s!dad

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #215    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 215

Today's Topics:
		    Re: tolerance of unusual theories
	   re: Interplanetary Migration for population control
	     Atmospheric effects of interplanetary migration
			  Plymouth and Jamestown
	   re: Interplanetary Migration for population control
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 83 8:45:56-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxr!lew @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: tolerance of unusual theories

Regarding the Church's tolerance of various planetary theories in
Galileo's time, I would point out that the Church (and everybody else
I guess) was going on the assumption that these were all mathematical
artifices which did nothing more than account for the apparent positions
of the planets in the sky. No matter how nice such an artifice worked
out, it was incapable of challenging the Church's world view.

Galileo changed everything when he reported his telescopic observations.
He was seeing things in the REAL WORLD which had no place in
the Church's world view. I cite the phases of venus, the mountains of
the moon, the spots on the sun, and the moons of jupiter. That all
these made sense under the Copernican system is not the main issue.
The main thing was that Galileo stole the REAL WORLD right out from
under the Church. It is my opinion that this is fundamentally the same
battle that is being fought today over creationism. When religion
relinquished the REAL WORLD to science it was reduced to a secondary
role in human affairs. Creationism is an attempt by religion to steal
the REAL WORLD, and the preeminence that goes with it, back from science.

I can feel the "get this out of net.space" flames licking at my feet.
I agree that this belongs in net.religion, and I'll look there for
further discussion.

	Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 83 11:33 EDT
Sender: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: re: Interplanetary Migration for population control
To: ihnp4!u1100s!dad@Ucb-Vax.Arpa
cc: space@Mit-Mc.ARPA, Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
From: Chris Heiny <Heiny.Henr@Parc-Maxc.Arpa>

     "One significant problem with this line of reasoning is that the
      vehicles used to transport commercial aviation passengers one
      day are still around to transport more passengers the next day.
      In an out bound migration, the vehicles used to transport the
      passengers are gone from the system once they are used.  (I am
      talking about the interplanetary vehicles, not the shuttles used
      to move the passengers to Earth orbit.)  I would hate to think
      what would happen to the Earth's supplies of spaceship building
      materials (e.g. titanium) after 100 years of sending out
      thousands of ships each day"

Detroit has been consuming much more steel to produce autos than it
has in it's natural environs for the past 70 years.  Perhaps titanium,
etc.  can be imported to earth.  The ships could even be built on the
moon, a much more reasonable place to construct them: you wouldn't
have to lift them out of earths gravity well.  And the ships would
also probably be used to make round trips: it is probably more
economical to send an partly loaded liner back to earth from the
asteroids than to build another and let that one rust.  Eventually
trade between the colonies and earth would reach a point where vessels
would be fully laden each way (as with trade between the New World and
Europe).  Europe was not denuded of trees and iron during the conquest
of the New World.

					Chris

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 19 Sep 83 10:19:36 PDT
From:           Willard Korfhage <korfhage@UCLA-ATS>
To:             space@mit-mc
Subject:        Atmospheric effects of interplanetary migration

   Some time ago I read that a large number of spacecraft launches might
affect the atmosphere, particularly the ozone layer, what with all the
combustion products being released by the engines into the upper atmosphere.
Does anyone know if this is true? If it is, then you may have to rethink
your plans for mass migration until you find some non-combustion powered
way to get people above the atmosphere (elevators?).

------------------------------

Date:  19 September 1983 17:35 edt
From:  SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Plymouth and Jamestown
Sender:  SAI-relay.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
To:  space at MIT-MC
*from:  SAS (Seth A. Steinberg)
Local:  space at mit-mc
Original-date:  08 AUG 1983 11:02:48

The Pilgrims left the old world because they were NOT being
persecuted and their children were being assimilated.  A few
more generations and they'd have been wiped out by sheer
religious tolerance.

Jamestown was founded as a glassblowing center since it had a
wonderful supply of wood which was as important then as oil is
now.  From what I gather, Virginia was heavily settled by
people trying to make a quick buck.

If we follow these two paradigms we might find the Unification
Church and U.S.Steel as the primary explorers of space in the
next hundred years.

I am not sure if anyone has noticed but the gap between the
discovery of land on this side of the Atlantic and the
establishment of the first colonies ran about 100 years.  If a
similar pattern holds there will be a few specialized
military/scientific bases in space in 50 years or so, but that
the colonization is still far in the future.

------------------------------

Date: 20 September 1983 03:50 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: re: Interplanetary Migration for population control
To: harpo!eagle!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!u1100a!u1100s!dad @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

You are arguing a red herring. Nobody (in hir right mind) would
propose building millions of spacecraft on Earth and sending them up
once and never bringing them back for reuse, when a shuttle exists as
an alternative. The idea is to reuse shuttles many times, like
commercial airliners, to transport people in large numbers from Earth
to space stations. At that point the people may move into new space
habitats which are built in space out of space-found materials, or may
be moved to other places in spaceships built again out of space-found
materials.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Sep-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #216    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 216

Today's Topics:
			   Columbia Lives!!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 1983 09:29:50 PDT
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: Columbia Lives!!!!!

FROM AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, September 19, 1983:

BEGGS ENDS PLAN TO STORE SHUTTLE ORBITER

        NASA head James T. Beggs has reversed an agency shuttle
program office decision that would have placed the orbiter
Columbia in storage for two years and made the spacecraft
available for spare parts cannibalization half that period...
        Shuttle managers had treated their earlier decision as a
routine adjustment of program assets and therefore had not
included Beggs in the planning.  He immediately reversed it,
characterizing it as bad political and engineering policy...
        "I think they were wrong in considering it that way,"
Beggs said, "but I can understand why they would." ...
        "There are two reasons I felt it was a bad thing to do.
One is that it is bad engineering policy to make a hangar queen
out of a flying airplane.
        "It would be a very bad thing to lay Columbia up and
cannibalize it because I don't think we would ever get it back to
the condition it's in now.
        "The second reason is that it would leave the wrong
impression not only politically, but also with our customer
base..."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #217    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 217

Today's Topics:
			 Space Station Politics  
		     Re: Number 213 : space colonies
			    Re: re:none - (nf)
			   Columbia Lives!!!!!
	game theory and nuclear war - who will inherit the galaxy?
		       Does space relieve crowding?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 83  1229 PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW@SU-AI>
Subject: Space Station Politics  
To:   space@MIT-MC

n013  0736  21 Sep 83
BC-SPACE-STATION
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - President Reagan is reported to be under pressure from
his political strategists to endorse a major new space endeavor, the
orbiting space station, as a tactical move against Sen. John Glenn,
the former astronaut who could be Reagan's Democratic opponent in the
next election.
    Administration officials say the president is being encouraged to
announce the new multibillion-dollar project soon and in some
dramatic fashion that, in tone and spirit, would be reminiscent of
President Kennedy's dramatic call in 1961 to send men to the moon.
    In this way, according to some White House thinking, the president
might neutralize Glenn's ''hero image'' and demonstrate a commitment
to maintaining American leadership in space technology. The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration has lobbied vigorously in recent
months to win support for the space station as ''the next logical
step'' in the nation's space program.
    Although the project has strong backing in Congress, in the
aerospace industry and among some in the White House, opposition has
been raised by the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence
Agency and the Office of Management and Budget. The opponents argue
that NASA has not made a convincing case to justify the project's
estimated cost of $6 billion to $9 billion by 1991.
    Bruce Abel, press secretary to the president's science adviser,
George A. Keyworth 2d, emphasized Tuesday that no decision has been
reached by the administration and that no announcement appeared to be
imminent. The matter, he said, would ''continue to be discussed over
a couple of months.''
    Even if Reagan decided in favor of the space station, Glenn's
science adviser, Lynn Weiss, said it would be ''a little late'' to
show that the administration's support for a stronger civilian space
program was anything but lukewarm. Although as a Senator he has taken
little direct part in space politics, Glenn is the only Democratic
candidate so far to announce support for a more active space program.
    In an article in the September issue of Spectrum, a publication of
the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Glenn said:
''Our spirit as a nation is reflected in our willingness to explore
the unknown for the benefit of all humanity, and space is a prime
medium in which to test our mettle. We have the resources and the
talent to maintain our superiority in space as well as on earth. All
we need is the leadership and the will.''
    The senator added that a permanently manned space station in earth
orbit was ''the key to cost-effective space operations.''
    In an announcement in July, the space agency said that if
development began next year a large space station could be put into
orbit by 1991. Preliminary plans call for a station, an assembly of
living and working modules, that could house four to six astronauts
at a time and serve as a base for scientific experiments, the
processing of industrial products in the micro-gravity environment,
earth observations and the deployment of vehicles going out to the
more distant reaches of space. People and supplies would be ferried
to the station by the space shuttles.
    The Soviet Union has made no secret of its plans to assemble a large
station in orbit, perhaps later in this decade. The Salyut 7, now in
orbit with two astronauts aboard, is believed to be a precursor to
such an installation.
    James M. Beggs, the NASA Administrator, said Monday that the United
States would build a space station sooner or later. ''If we delay, we
will lose part of our lead,'' he said at an aerospace electronics
conference. ''It would not only be dangerous, but tragic, if we lose
the momentum we have developed in the last 25 years. We, therefore,
believe the space station is an idea whose time has come.''
    But Dr. Victor M. Reis, former assistant director of the President's
Office of Science and Technology, reflected the go-slow attitude of
many opponents of the program. ''We have plenty of study and
experimentation to do before we need to move on to another level of
sophistication,'' he said at the same conference. ''What corporation
would spend billions to construct a plant before either the
manufacturing technology or the market were even established?''
    Both the Pentagon and the CIA contend that there is no military or
intelligence-gathering mission that the space station could perform
that could not be done as well and at less cost with unmanned
satellites. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report last
week saying that there was no immediate scientific need for the
station but acknowledging ''the possibility that a suitably designed
space station could serve as a very useful facility in support of
future space science activities.''
    
nyt-09-21-83 1034edt
***************

------------------------------

Date:     19 September 1983 1825-mst
From:     Kevin B. Kenny    <Kenny.OSNI @ HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS>
Subject:  Re: Number 213 : space colonies
To:       Space-Enthusiasts @ MIT-MC

From Jose's description, I can't tell which of the Harry Stine books he
meant:

          <<The Third Industrial Revolution>>,
          <<The Space Enterprise>>,
          <<Space Power>>
          <<Confrontation in Space>>

On the subject, I'd also recommend Jerry Pournelle's <<A Step Farther
Out>>.

/k**2 (Kenny.OSNI%PCO-Multics@CISL)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 83 23:29:25-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: re:none - (nf)

#R:duke:-354800:uiucdcs:12700037:000:383
uiucdcs!mcdaniel    Sep 18 14:42:00 1983

Some of us don't get the New York Times or the Washington Post, or don't
have enough time to wade through them.  Some of us are stuck with the
Daily Illini (we'd be lucky if they'd bother to report World War III).
Keep it up, alice!alb !

Tim McDaniel, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, CS dept.
(UNIX mail: . . . pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel)
(CSNET: mcdaniel.uiuc@RAND-RELAY)

------------------------------

Date: 22 September 1983 03:14 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Columbia Lives!!!!!
To: METH @ USC-ISI
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I think Beggs is warming up to the job, and may turn out quite well.
People are doing bad things behind his back, but as soon as he finds
out about them he is overruling them. Maybe we should all write him
letters congradulating him on his decision to keep all existing
shuttles in working order, and offering him our support in getting
Congress to fund a fifth shuttle.

------------------------------

Date: 22 September 1983 03:44 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: game theory and nuclear war - who will inherit the galaxy?
To: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC, SPACE @ MIT-MC
cc: cunningh @ NOSC-CC

Assuming full MIRVs such as MX on both sides...

As a two person game, with payoffs sort of like the "prisoner's
dilemma", the optimal strategy will be to strike first in any crisis,
any time we lose trust of the other side.

But in the overall context of which civilization survives to inhabit
the galaxy, it may be something like the round-robin, where the
overall winner may lose every one of his one-on-won battles but
because he gets in fights less he survives overall better than the
winners do.

Suppose that lots of different technological lifeforms evolve around
the galaxy, each with different ways of looking at the Universe and
what to do in it. On each planet two superpowers are in control at the
critical time when nuclear weapons have been invented but space hasn't
yet been habitated. If both of those superpowers are "winners",
they'll have a crisis and anihilate each other. If both are "losers",
they'll survive. I don't think the case of one "winner" and one
"loser" would produce the balance of terror that we're considering. In
any case the one "loser" would go away and the one "winner" would
fragment and result in two "winners" at the critical stage.

Now imagine this experiment all over the galaxy. Most planets have the
two "winners", and they promptly go away. Those rare planets with two
"losers" would end up populating the galaxy.

Is Earth a 2-winner dinosaur, or a 2-loser rare gem?
I don't know. When the inevitable crisis occurs, we'll find out.

(Thanks for Hofstadter's article a few months ago in Sci.Am. for
getting the basic idea in my brain churning around until now.)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 83 16:27:15-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekcad!keithl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Does space relieve crowding?

"Overpopulation"; an interesting word.
   Per inhabitant (assumed pop. 5E9), the Earth has
	30,000 square meters of land
	72,000 square meters of ocean
	25,000,000 watts solar irradiance
	70 tons of "alive" matter  (including almost 1 billion insects!)
	2,000 tons of biosphere
        1,000,000 tons of atmosphere
	300,000,000 tons of ocean
   I figure the planet COULD support about 5 TRILLION people with the
"right" technology, covering the land to Manhattan density.  Some people
appear to ENJOY living that densely!  I suspect overpopulation is more a
psychological problem than a technical one.

   What is it that makes people feel crowded?  Competition for scarce 
resources, perhaps, or pollution.  Personally, I don't like the social
pollution (crime, intolerance, laws, taxes, war) that "crowded" people
generate.

   I find the idea of space colonization very appealing.  Freedom!
Elbowroom! Virtually unlimited growth! Sure, there will be problems,
but I've gotten bored trying to solve the present set, which are mostly 
between the ears of others.  I would rather cope with a meteor shower than
a politician with "good intentions".

   The planet might be a better place with irritants like me off it, as
well.  You wouldn't have to move a very large percentage off planet to
eliminate a lot of the perceived crowding.  The people remaining wouldn't
have to accommodate as much "difference".

   To those who wish to stay, go ahead!  When the crazies leave, you may
find the people left behind more to your liking.  People who want to solve
their problems by political means, for example, I'd rather have stay on
Earth anyway.  Governments are for gravity wells!

   Enough spouting.  Flames can be addressed to: 
-- 
Keith Lofstrom
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #218    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 218

Today's Topics:
			      Overpopulation
			      Overpopulation
			  Shuttle announcements
			 Space Station Politics  
			Space 25 in IEEE Spectrum
			  Columbia NOT Benched!
				 columbia
			re: Shuttle announcements
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Sep 83 09:47 PDT
From: STOGRYN.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Overpopulation
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: STOGRYN.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

I applaud the comments made by Keith Lofstrom; I agree that it's is most
times easier to cope with the natural environtment than with the
"elements" found in big cities (and else where).

	. . .   I find the idea of space colonization very appealing.
	Freedom! Elbowroom! Virtually unlimited growth! Sure,
	there will be problems, but I've gotten bored trying to
	solve the present set, which are mostly between the
	ears of others.  I would rather cope with a meteor shower
	than a politician with "good intentions". . .
						Keith Lofstrom

This country was built on the idea of manifest destiny (not necessarily
conquering others), spreading out, exploring, discovering new lands and
new cultures, to boldly go . . . ( I got carried away); that's progress!
I don't feel that the United States is progressing like it  could or
should. How can we? We can't, without taking from others. Let's go out
there and explore what doesn't belong to anyone yet. Let's go out there
and really see for ourselves what's out there. The early explorers of
the new world found resources beyond their comprehension, yet they
didn't find THE treasure that they had been searching for. The Russian
have found enough excuses to put up a "permanent space station"; can't
we? Let's at LEAST get started.


Steve Stogryn
P.S.  We may get the beginings of a space station because of the
presidential election, Glenn vs. Regan. Isn't it funny how political
expedience has always been the driving force for all US Space projects?
No.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Sep 83 09:52 PDT
From: STOGRYN.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Overpopulation
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: STOGRYN.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Let's show all those third world countries especially that we have no
designs on their puny resources. We have our eyes on bigger things. We
have better places to go. Go west, young man. . . Out there. . . thata
way!

Steve Stogryn

------------------------------

Date: 22 September 1983 20:24 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle announcements
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC
cc: KFL @ MIT-MC

  Yes, lets continue having announcements as to when the shuttles are
due to lift off and land.  What I *am* tired of seeing is messages
announcing that there was a perfect takeoff -- two days after the
landing.  There is too much latency in the net to bother announcing
events as they happen.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 22 September 1983 20:52 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Space Station Politics  
To: TAW @ SU-AI
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

What, even with Glenn having his way it'll take until 1991 before the
very firstperanent space station is up there? Whatever happened to
quick-and-dirty space station out of old Apollo/Gemini airlocks and
used STS fuel tanks etc? Can't we get something primitive working in 3-4
years and then see where to go from there? What do the rest of you
think of the timetable for getting a space station up there?

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 1983 20:48:02 EDT (Thursday)
From: Stephen X. Nahm <sxn@BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Space 25 in IEEE Spectrum
To: space@mit-mc

I don't remember seeing anyone mention this:  the September IEEE
Spectrum (Vol. 20, No. 9) is a special issue called "Space 25,"
in honor of the 25th anniversary of NASA.  The issue attempts to
"assess where human beings are and where they are headed in
space."  On the cover is a picture of the proposed Mariner Mark II
flying by an asteroid.

Steve Nahm

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 83 16:01:40-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!wivax!linus!vaxine!agr @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Columbia NOT Benched!

from Aviation Week & Space Technology Sept. 19, 1983:
"NASA head James M. Beggs has reversed an agency shuttle program
office decision that would have placed the orbiter Columbia in
storage for two years and made the spacecraft available for spare
parts cannaibaization for half that period.
   . . .
Beggs said. 'There are two reasons I felt it was a bad thing to do.
One is that it is bad engineering policy to make a hanger queen out
of a flying airplane.  It would be a very bad thing to lay up Columbia
and cannibalize it because I don't think we would ever get it back to
the condition it is in now.  The second reason is that it wopuld definitely
leave the wrong impression not only politically, but also with our
customer base. . . . While we do have shortages now we have put plenty
of money in to by and lay-in the necessary spares over the next two to
three years.'
. . .
Now that the decision has been reversed, the agency will have to
revise its manifest and find one or two missions for Columbia between
Spacelab 1 [which was to be its last for two years] and Columbia's
modification period. The most likely candidates are Mission 17 in
August 1984 carrying the Earth radiation budget spacecraft and the
Spacelab 3 life sciences mission scheduled for shuttle Mission 20 in
November 1984."

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 83 13:26:33-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!gummo!whuxlb!floyd!clyde!crc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: columbia

NASA Head James M Beggs has reversed the shuttle program office decision
to use Columbia as a parts supply/hanger queen.  They had not consulted
him when they made the decision.  In fact, they are now planning to shift
two missions to Columbia from the other shuttles.  Most likely these
will be Mission 17 in August 84 (Earth radiation budget spacecraft) and
Mission 20 in November 1984, (Spacelab 3).

For more info see Aviation week, Sept 19, 1983.
/crc

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 83 20:02:16-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!pyuxmm!pyuxnn!pyuxi!u1100a!u1100s!dad @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: re: Shuttle announcements

Regarding OAF@MIT-OZ's complaint about shuttle announcements in net.space:
Most, if not all, annoucements of when the Shuttle look off or is supposed to
land appear in net.columbia not net.space.  These reports are retieved from one
of the Wire Service computer systems by Adam Buchsbaum.  This is a feature, not
a problem.  Many machines are not tied into the wire services.  This is a way
of getting timely shuttle reports over the net.  I, for one, find these reports
among the best things on the net.  If you find them boring, type n when you get
the prompt.
		Doug Davey   BTL    ihnp4!u1100s!dad

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #219    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 219

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Star-naming commercial organization
			  Columbia NOT Benched!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 83 9:45:26-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!esj @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Star-naming commercial organization
In-Reply-To: Article <5458@sri-arpa.UUCP>

As someone from UT Astronomy (I think) pointed out, the IAU is the
body which officially names celestial bodies.  There can be a thousand
of these ripoff companies naming stars and it doesn't mean squat, except
for the people who are getting rich by using other peoples' ignorance.

Jeff "I'll sell you a plot on Mars" Johnson

------------------------------

Date: 23 September 1983 10:17 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Columbia NOT Benched!
To: decvax!wivax!linus!vaxine!agr @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I don't quite understand the problem with finding missions for the
Columbia. First of all, does it make any difference to some mission
which particular orbiter it flies on? I thought the orbiters were
supposed to be essentially identical. So why not just put the next
mission on the next available orbiter? Second, as I understand it, STS
is about three years behind schedule. Why can't they just speed up
launches and drift back towards the original schedule? Most companies
wanting to put up satellites, thinking of switching to Arianne et al
because STS is delayed so very long, would be glad to have an earlier
launch, wouldn't they? Once things are moving faster, companies
contemplating reserving a launch way down the road will be encouraged
by the chance of a launch not quite as far down the road, and
reservations should start piling in.

If I'm mistaken, would somebody please explain why we have to scrounge
around for missions for Columbia instead of just moving ahead with the
already-scheduled missions in an obvious way? (The suggestion I'm
replying to did involve already-scheduled missions, but it sounded
like it was easier said than done for some unknown reason.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Sep-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #220    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 220

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Does space relieve crowding?
			  Re: Columbia benched?
		     Re: Does space relieve crowding?
		     Re: Does space relieve crowding?
	       re: Shuttle announcements from wire services
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 83 13:16:07-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!CSvax.Pucc-H.ab3 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Does space relieve crowding?

Quoting here:

	From: keithl@tekcad
	Subject: Does space relieve crowding?
	
	"Overpopulation"; an interesting word.
	   Per inhabitant (assumed pop. 5E9), the Earth has
		30,000 square meters of land
		72,000 square meters of ocean
		25,000,000 watts solar irradiance
		70 tons of "alive" matter  (including almost 1 billion insects!)
		2,000 tons of biosphere
	        1,000,000 tons of atmosphere
		300,000,000 tons of ocean

I wonder about these statistics; not that I disupte their validity; but
I think the interpretation needs to be qualified. If I enjoy 3e4 square meters
of land which happends to be on top Mount Kilamanjaro, I probably won't enjoy
it very much... I see your basic point, but I think that w/o assuming great
strides in terraforming and energy technology we are going to be running
out of land, energy, water, etc... by and by.

				Darth Wombat

			Doing my part to combat those 1 billion insects!

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 83 8:39:07-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!pyuxmm!pyuxnn!pyuxi!pyuxvv!brt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Columbia benched?
In-Reply-To: Article <1016@ittvax.UUCP>

This monday's AWST has a half-page article on the benching of OV102
(a.k.a. USS COLUMBIA) . In essence , the decision to mothball it for two
years was made by the lower echelon of management and had to do with the
fact that Rockwell Intl. is too busy with th B1-B project to get to
COLUMBIA for at least 14 month . It would have been cheaper to mothball it
for while than to keep it flying . But J.Beggs , (NASA's administrator ?),
upon hearing of this , reversed the decision . So now , JSC and KSC are
faced with reworking the shuttle manifest , to find some work for COLUMBIA.
One of the candidate missions would be another flight of the ESA Spacelab-1.

			...!pyuxvv!brt	(B.Reytblat , AT&T-BL , PY )

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 83 13:46:33-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!achilles!ulysses!princeton!astrovax!wls @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Does space relieve crowding?
In-Reply-To: Article <44@tekcad.UUCP>

I, for one don't believe that 70 tons of alive matter figure.  A simple
astronomer's kind of order-of-magnitude calculation:
	4 billion people (roughly)
		x
	1/20 th of a ton (100 lbs a bit small but right order of magnitude)
yields  200 million tons for the human "alive matter" alone.
 William L. Sebok {allegra,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno}!astrovax!wls

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 83 11:57:00-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!csd1!condict @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Does space relieve crowding?
In-Reply-To: Article <295@pucc-h>

Anyone who thinks that 30,000 square meters of land is a lot (or even
sufficient) per person should consider the following facts:

1) That is a plot of land only 180 meters on a side -- barely enough for
a house and a little bit of privacy (you city slickers probably think it's
big enough to have a farm).  Would you want to live in a world where all the
houses are 180 yards apart?  Of course, you say that the density will not be
uniform, being concentrated in cities, but it is sobering to think that this is
all the space available to satisfy the standard American dream of a house and
a little elbow room.

2) Considering that maybe half of the land surface is desert, artic or swamp,
we're really talking about, say, 15000 square meters per person -- roughly
120 meters square.  Anyone who disputes the unsuitability of the other half
for supporting a reasonable quality of life should go live there (a fitting
punishment).  Notice that I'm willing to allow that jungles are livable; at
least they are teeming with life forms, if not humans.  But I balk at the
notion of sending people to the middle of the Sahara or Gobi deserts or to
the Antartic without very sophisticated and expensive technology.

3) The figure must again be reduced, if these people are to live as Americans
do, because we need at least half (and probably all) of the remaining space
to mine, farm, graze, manufacture and waste dispose (including auto junkyards
and garbage dumps).  In fact it is widely agreed that it would be impossible,
even in the short run, to support the entire world population at the level
of consumption that takes place in the U.S.  There is simply not enough energy,
grazing land (for beef cattle), farm land, and residential living space.
Thus anyone who thinks that there are not too many people in the world either
believes that it is okay for the major cause of death in underdeveloped
countries to be malnutrition, or they have a very naive view of the limits of
current life support technology.  It is extremely unfeeling, if not arrogant,
to sit down in front of your electronic wonder in your energy-intensive
office building with an automobile parked outside that cost more in dollars
and in consumption of resources than a worker in some countries can hope to
earn in a lifetime, and claim that everything is hunk-dory, let's have billions
of more people (as long as they don't move in to share my apartment).

In my opinion, the only reason this tired planet has a chance of survival is
because one of the two impending causes of its demise -- nuclear holocaust --
is likely to provide a horrible cure for the other -- overpopulation (assuming
it doesn't terminate all life).

Michael Condict

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 83 16:38:51-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!achilles!ulysses!princeton!astrovax!wls @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: re: Shuttle announcements from wire services
In-Reply-To: Article <144@u1100s.UUCP>

Most machine are not tied to the wire services.  If only we were so lucky
(or could afford it, for that matter).
 William L. Sebok {allegra,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno}!astrovax!wls

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Sep-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #221    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 221

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Space and Overpopulation
			 Transfer to VAD Delayed
			Re: Plymouth and Jamestown
		    Re: Question about fusion in stars
			     Re: naming stars
		     Re: Does space relieve crowding?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 83 9:29:40-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxm!gjphw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space and Overpopulation


   In this discussion of the use of space as a repository for the excess
 population of the Earth, I would like to argue that the technique of
 colonization has never succeeded before in reducing overpopulation.  Greek
 mythology holds that the Trojan wars were begun by the gods to reduce the
 world's population.  While the wars were long and costly, they failed to
 achieve this goal.  One historian that I heard said that one of the reasons
 for supporting the colonies in the New World was to relieve Europe of its
 overpopulation.  The less desirable were sent first.  This relief valve for
 Europe's population also failed at the time, and the population of the U.S.
 derived from slow and steady immigration and local reproduction.

   I have also heard that population pressure is the diving force for
 technology.  As the population density increases, different kinds (more
 complex and extensive) of technology are required to sustain it.  The "quality
 of life" can be related to the relationship between population density and
 technology.

   Colonization on Earth has not served as a relief valve for population
 pressures.  I don't see any reason why space colonization would succeed at
 this objective.


                                          Patrick Wyant
                                          AT&T Bell Labs (Naperville, IL)
                                          *!ihuxm!gjphw

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 83 14:23:18-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      npois!hogpc!houca!orion!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Transfer to VAD Delayed

NASA has postponed the transfer of the Columbia from the
OPF to the VAB by 48 hours, but they say the delay will
not affect the launch of STS-9.  The delay is to give
engineers more time to reinforce the shuttle's midsection,
giving it more strength in its steeper reentry for this
mission.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 83 22:36:01-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!ut-sally!jsq @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Plymouth and Jamestown
In-Reply-To: Article <11822@sri-arpa.UUCP>

The gap between the (late European) discovery of land on this side of the
Atlantic and the establishment of the first *British* colonies ran about
100 years.  It took more like *two* years for the first Spanish colony.
Practically all the hispanoamerican capitals were established almost
a century before Jamestown.

The primary colonizers of the New World were Spanish and Portuguese
conquistadores in search of gold for their kings and themselves and
converts for their God.  They had a monopoly for a hundred years
because the Pope divided the entire hemisphere among their govern-
ments, they had the most advanced sea-going technology, and they
had the resources of the New World to support them.  It took the
Dutch, French, and British a long time to begin to compete.

Fortunately, the settlement of space isn't likely to follow precisely
the same pattern, as there aren't any natives in solar space to convert,
and the resources available are thousands of times greater in space.
-- 
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
{ihnp4,kpno,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP}

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 83 15:45:27-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!genrad!security!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!kpno!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Question about fusion in stars
In-Reply-To: Article <4919@sri-arpa.UUCP>

f the stars that one sees with the naked eye are
intrinsically bright, and are not representative of the stellar
population as a whole.  In my elementary astronomy class I sometimes
have the students plot (on the Temperature-Luminosity diagram) the
positions of the 20 nearest stars, and then the positions of the
20 brightest (to the naked eye) stars.  The distribution is entirely
different.

It's sort of like reading the obituary column in Newsweek.  One seldom
finds the average Joe or Jane there.

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (Snail)
	ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill   (uucp)
	utastro!bill@utexas-11   (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 83 15:55:10-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!genrad!security!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!kpno!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: naming stars
In-Reply-To: Article <4906@sri-arpa.UUCP>

For Robert Elton Maas, who has an ARPA address I don't know
how to reach.

More on the IAU:  The International Astronomical Union adheres
to the International Council of Scientific Unions, which itself
is supported by UNESCO.

If you discover a comet or nova (better yet, supernova! We haven't
had one for over 300 years) immediately *wire* Dr. Brian Marsden:
His TWX is 710-320-6842 ASTROGRAM CAM.  He can be reached by
telephone at (617) 864-5758.  His snail address is:
	
	Dr. Brian Marsden
	Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
	60 Garden St.
	Cambridge MA 02138

As for an ARPA address for Brian, he may have one, but I don't know
it.  My apologies.

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (Snail)
	ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill   (uucp)
	utastro!bill@utexas-11   (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 83 16:20:24-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxs!okie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Does space relieve crowding?
In-Reply-To: Article <44@tekcad.UUCP>

Anybody partaking in this discussion read Ben Bova's novel "Colony?"
Might make a good counterpoint to all of this speculation.

B.K. Cobb

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Sep-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #222    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 222

Today's Topics:
			  re: space colonization
				 insects
				   MMU
				 Gravity
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 1983 0946-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: redarpa at SHORTY
Subject: re: space colonization
Message-ID: <"MS10(2124)+GLXLIB1(1136)" 11954703285.24.583.5808 at DEC-MARLBORO>

When people talk of colonizing space, the analogy that always comes to my
mind is colonizing Antarctica.  The two have a great deal in common;
both are vast and empty, and contain potentially rich resources, and
both environments are fatal to unprotected humans.  Both have a desolate
beauty that one could grow to like.  I knew a guy who had spent a year
down in Antarctica at a research base, and he brought back some extraordinary
pictures of the aurora.  Antarctica has an edge over outer space in that
there is an occasional penguin to liven things up.  Plus, it can be settled
with today's technology.  (Please, no comments about how space colonies could
be built with current technology.  Current technology means things that
are done in regular practice, not things that are just physically possible.)
     And yet, there are no steamers packed with hopeful settlers on their way
south.   This might be because only scientists and the military can get
permission to go there, but there doesn't really seem to be much demand for 
homesteads. Antarctica is a barren wasteland.  Living there means spending 
all your time in a metal can, with an occasional few minutes outside.
No birds, no sunshine, no frisbee out on the grass.  One can imagine 
building enclosed domes full of greenery, but in fact no one can afford
to.
   How is space different?   Well,  Antarctica is finite and space 
is not.  The possibilities for expansion are limited.   Remember, though,
that ten million people have hardly begun to fill up Austrailia.  Antarctica
is of similar size, but with four orders of magnitude less people.  There
would hardly be any reason to feel cramped.  And space isn't really infinite.
The only parts you can do anything with are Mercury, Mars, the Moon, the
few hundred asteroids of appeciable size, and the moons of the gas giants.
The total area of all of these probably doesn't come to much more than that
of the Earth.  Venus is too hot, the gas giants are not solid, and the stars
are too far away. (Again, please, no talk of hyperdrives.)
     Is life in space likelier to be freer than that in Antarctica?  I don't
see how can it can be.  There are already a maze of regulations and treaties
governing what you can do up there.  As the military's presence grows, one's
freedom of action is likely to become even more restricted.  People living
in near-Earth space can destroy cities just by dropping things on them;
Earthside authorities are not likely to let that go unchecked.
     Still, the reason for going to Antarctica is the same as the reason
for going to space, knowledge.  Knowledge is the cheapest commodity to
transport, so it's the first to be returned from distant places.  Knowledge
is far more valuable than Antarctic coal or asteroidal steel.   I don't 
really care much if we can mine hydrocarbons from the surface of Titan,
but I would sure like to know what's going on down there.
     Perhaps someday we will put lots of people and industry into space.
Micro-gravity could become a major component of industrial processes, as
major as, say, catalytic cracking is to chemical production.  But the
real excitement of space is exploration and science.  If all you are looking
for is a bigger backyard, then try the South Pole.

John Redford
DEC - Hudson
   --------

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 1983 10:53:03-EDT
From: Bruce.Lucas@CMU-CS-IUS
To: space@mc
Subject: insects

Somehow, 1 billion insects doesn't sound quite right either: that's only one
insect for every man, woman and child on earth.  I might believe 1 trillion.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 83 21:21:45-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: MMU

Does anyone have any information on the MMU (Manned Maneuvering Unit)
which is to flown on STS-11? What does it look like? What are the
plans for it?
				-Ron
			(..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 83 01:16:06 PDT (Tuesday)
Subject: Gravity
To: Space@MC.ARPA
cc: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
Reply-To: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

[A little humor from SPACEWATCH: The Journal of the Chicago Society for
Space Studies.  --Bruce]

GRAVITY: when you want to hold something down it can be your friend.
But treat it carelessly and it can hurt you.  Over 31,000 people died
last year from falls and other gravity-related accidents.  Don't be one
of gravity's victims this year!

GRAVITY:  NOT JUST A GOOD IDEA.  IT'S THE \LAW/.

For more information, write:  The President's Commission on Gravitation,
Dept. 981, Newton, Virginia  32174

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Sep-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #223    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 223

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Does space relieve crowding?
			       Elevators??
			    The Great Silence
			      Antartic Blues
			Re: Space Station Politics
			Re: Space Station Politics
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 83 18:06:48-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!mark @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Does space relieve crowding?
In-Reply-To: Article <44@tekcad.UUCP> <389@ihuxs.UUCP>

	Anybody partaking in this discussion read Ben Bova's novel "Colony?"
	Might make a good counterpoint to all of this speculation.

Right.  Bova isn't just speculating, of course.
-- 
spoken:	mark weiser
UUCP:	{seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark
CSNet:	mark@umcp-cs
ARPA:	mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 83 9:59:27-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!crm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Elevators??

There are lots of nift ways to avoid lots of launches, but elevators
are a pretty good one.  Check out Charles Sheffields 'Beanstalk' stuff
or Clarke's 'Fountains of Paradise' ...  the math works out, all we need
is a little technological innovation...

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 83 10:07:36-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: The Great Silence

 Harping back to the question of extra-terrestrial civilisations, there
is an excellent paper by G.D. Brin entitled "The Great Silence" in vol 24
No. 3 (Sept.) of the Quarterly Journal of The Royal Astronomical Society.
The upshot of this is that deadly von Neumann probes or Ecological Holocaust
would adequately account for the lack of contacts so far.
This might have some bearing on the present discussions of interplanetary 
migations.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 1983 10:11:45 EDT (Tuesday)
From: Stephen X. Nahm <sxn@BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Antartic Blues
To: vlsi@dec-marlboro
Cc: space@mit-mc

John,

    While your comparison of Antartica to off-planet colonization destinations
seems plausible on the surface, it ultimately doesn't hold space.  On the
surface of the moon, or Mars, the primary thing you have going against you is
lack of air (and some sun radiation problems, so grant it, don't plan on sun
bathing on the shores of Mare Imbrium).  So if you set your solar power array
down outside your inhabitation facilities, you can expect it to be there in the
morning.

    But in Antartica, the environment is actively against you.  Forget solar
power, even during the summer there's very little light.  And in the morning
you'll be lucky to find your inhabitation facility, much less any thing you
left outside it!

    By contrast, the moon is a tranquil, benign environment.  Sign me up for
the first settlement.  Antartica?  I'll give it the cold shoulder.

Steve Nahm

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 83 7:28:48-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!ut-sally!riddle @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station Politics

     Funny that the CIA opposes a space-station project on the grounds
of cost.  According to figures mentioned by former CIA agent John Stock-
well in a talk given recently in Austin, the CIA could pay for such a
project two or three times over in a  s i n g l e  year.  And what return
do we get on our investment with the CIA?

                                    -- Prentiss Riddle
                                       {ihnp4,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!riddle
                                       riddle@ut-sally.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 83 19:41:53-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!chris @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station Politics
In-Reply-To: Article <11914@sri-arpa.UUCP>

	NEW YORK - President Reagan is reported to be under pressure
	from his political strategists to endorse a major new space
	endeavor, the orbiting space station, as a tactical move
	against Sen. John Glenn....

@begin(cynicism)
As ever, the march of science is subservient to politics....
@end(cynicism)

Well, looks like we've got a good chance of putting up a space station
(finally!).

	...  opposition has been raised by the Defense Department....
	The opponents argue that NASA has not made a convincing case to
	justify the project's estimated cost of $6 billion to $9
	billion by 1991.

$1 billion a year, and the @i[Defense Department] is screaming about
the cost?!?!

	Even if Reagan decided in favor of the space station, Glenn's
	science adviser, Lynn Weiss, said it would be ''a little late''
	to show that the administration's support for a stronger
	civilian space program was anything but lukewarm.

Actually, I doubt it.  The average guy will only remember Reagan by the
last few months of his term in office.

	[Glenn] added that a permanently manned space station in earth
	orbit was ''the key to cost-effective space operations.''

Which it is.

	But Dr. Victor M. Reis, former assistant director of the
	President's Office of Science and Technology,

Good thing it's "former"....

	[said] ''We have plenty of study and experimentation to do
	before we need to move on to another level of
	sophistication....  What corporation would spend billions to
	construct a plant before either the manufacturing technology or
	the market were even established?''

But the Defense Department does that all the time!

Chris
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci
UUCP:	{seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #224    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 224

Today's Topics:
			  Re: The Great Silence
			Columbia Rollout Wednesday
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 83 04:30:33 PDT (Wednesday)
From: Murray.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: The Great Silence
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Murray.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

What's are "deadly von Neumann probes"?

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 83 17:27:20-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxi!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Columbia Rollout Wednesday

The Columbia will be rolled to pad 39A this Wednesday, beginning
at 0730 EDT, NASA said today.  The launch of STS-9 is still
scheduled for 28 October.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Sep-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V3 #225    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 3 : Issue 225

Today's Topics:
			Shuttle info on 800 number
			       mailing list
			Re: Space Station Politics
		    What is a deadly Von Neuman probe?
     The following is from Paul Torek -- Don't belieive the address!
			Re: Space Station Politics
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1983 1055-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Shuttle info on 800 number
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: Space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]29-Sep-83 10:55:17.WMARTIN>

Just received a form letter sent out by Electra to Bearcat
scanner dealers discussing an advertising tie-in with the STS-9
flight and Owen Garriott's plans for ham radio contacts during
the flight.  Since most programmable scanners will cover the ham
frequencies to be used, Electra is putting together various
advertising materials to promote their products using this
shuttle mission.

Anyhow, Electra has a toll-free info number that anyone can call
to get scanner frequency information and the like.  This is
800-S-C-A-N-N-E-R (or 800-722-6637, I suppose, though it is never
shown that way on their literature, of course).  They state,
"Electra Company wil be offering up-to-date information on the
shuttle flight, and specific details of Garriott's transmission
schedule, free of charge through our toll-free
1-800-S-C-A-N-N-E-R service."

Maybe somebody who has a good source of current info on the
flight schedules and details can check this out and see how really
"up-to-date" the info is; if it does turn out to be
up-to-the-minute, this 800 number can be a useful resource.

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1983  20:31 EDT
Message-ID: <[MIT-OZ].ESG.CYNDI.29-Sep-83 20:31:42>
From: ESG.CYNDI@MIT-OZ
To:   space-request@MIT-MC
Cc:   Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Subject: mailing list
In-reply-to: Msg of 27 Sep 1983  06:02-EDT from Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>

Please take me off the space digest mailing list.  I am one or more of
the following: esg.cyndi%mit-oz@mit-mc, dvw.cyndi@oz (with
appropreiate routing), brand.cyndi@oz, cyndi@oz, cyndi@mit-mc.

Thanks.

------------------------------

Date: 30 September 1983 00:37 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Space Station Politics
To: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!chris @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

One point that seems to have been missed is that it's precisely
because no company would invest 1E9 dollars in something not really
proven, that we have to get government to do it. It's these major
things that are a step forward, that are too big for any company to
risk, and with not enough payoff for the investor, but obviously good
for the nation (or world) as a whole, that we need government
(specificaly NASA) to do. If the payoff was good for the company
making the investment, with proven technology, and not much payoff for
other companies not investing or for the populace at large, the big
oil companies and conglomerates would be doing it.

Thus the comments that "gee, it's not a sure thing, no company would
do it because it's too much risk, so let's not have government do it
either" are nonsense.

------------------------------

Date:           Thu, 29 Sep 83 23:57:09 PDT
From:           Willard Korfhage <korfhage@UCLA-ATS>
To:             space@mit-mc
Subject:        What is a deadly Von Neuman probe?

What is one of these things?

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 83 13:13:45-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: The following is from Paul Torek -- Don't belieive the address!

(for complicated political reasons involving who does, and does not
get to post news, umcp-cs!dr_who has been gagged at umcp-cs. I am,  
however, perfectly willing to help Paul beat the system by posting articles 
from him until he gets his own system (prometh) up and ready to send
news. If you want to reply to this, however, you had better send
mail to allegra!umcp-cs!prometh!paul. While I will forward any mail
for him that ends up here, the turn around time is not guaranteed to be
fast -- laura)


******** begin forwarded article ************ 



The following is from Paul Torek.  Send replies to ..umcp-cs!prometh!paul

Whether or not the move into space can have a significant impact on the
population problem depends on what you think "the population problem" is.
Are there too many people on the earth?  "Too many" for what?  The very
concept of overpopulation is an evaluative one; "over"-anything is bad, by
definition.  This is totally obvious and yet the point passed me by for a
long time. 

So first of all, we need a definition of the optimal population before we
can decide whether earth is over- or underpopulated.  Kevin B. Kenny objects
to defining the optimum population as the minumum needed to provide today's
economies of scale; he suggests defining it as the maximum level that
doesn't seriously degrade the quality of life.  But, to state the obvious
again, there is a question of *whose* lives are being considered here --
only those who are already living, or also those who we are debating over
whether to bring into the world?

There is a straightforwardly ethical question here, and my opinion is that
the more people who are able to enjoy life here on earth (or anywhere else),
the better.  From this perspective, the expansion of the human species into
space is great -- we could increase the human population of the universe
drastically.  If there are eventually millions of planets with billions of
humans each, that would be fantastic even apart from its beneficial effects
here on earth!

Bruce Hamilton asked if there are any studies on what is the optimal
population.  Yes -- for references, see Julian Simon's book, *The Ultimate
Resource*.  Simon argues, and I agree, that what level is optimum depends on
the state of the technological art, and that the earth's ability to
accomodate more people will probably increase in the future, due to
technological advances and economic growth.  He argues furthermore that
population growth has long-term beneficial effects, particularly increased
scientific and technological advancement (as noted by some writers on the
net.)

That's it for now -- flame away!

--Paul Torek, ..umcp-cs!prometh!paul

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 83 16:52:28-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station Politics
In-Reply-To: Article <11946@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Many things, including the space program and the proposed space
station, would work a lot better if emphasis was placed on building
prototypes quickly and getting hard test results instead of having
to plan the perfect <whatever> on the basis of theoretical pontification
and computerized guesswork.  (The current debate about ABM systems is
a really gross example of how bad things get when there is no hard
test data to support or refute peoples' arguments.)

The trouble is, NASA cannot afford to make mistakes.  The preferred
"try it and see" attitude is impossible in a political environment
where any failure is a major disaster.  As long as space development
has to go through NASA, and as long as NASA has to fight for every
last dollar every year, there is little hope of getting fast results
out of a new project.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

