01-Oct-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #1 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 1

Today's Topics:
			      Administrivia 
  Down to the wire with Halley - M. Mitchell Waldrop article in SCIENCE
			      Sen. Proxmire
	       Soviets reenter the manned space business   
	    A second reverberating gamma ray burst discovered
			     Where are They??
			   Anybody out there??
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Sep 1981 1229-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Administrivia 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

In case you were wondering what the reason for the change from volume one to
volume two was, it is the occasion of the fiscal new year.  Happy New Year!

In an effort to dampen the excitement of the start of the new fiscal year, the
perversity of nature (AKA Murphy's Laws) have conspired to cause many people
(mostly on MC, I think) to miss the last digest of volume one.  This is
issue 204.  So if you missed V1 #204 let me know and I will mail you a copy.
In case you don't keep close track of the issue numbers this digest contained
an unusually large number of messages mostly about Life in the Universe.
Also a message from Dietz comparing 1micro-arc-second to the angle subtended by
an atom held at arms length (wow).

Anyway if you missed this one let me know.

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

Date: 30 Sep 1981 1212-PDT
From: Bob Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: Down to the wire with Halley - M. Mitchell Waldrop article in SCIENCE
To: space at MIT-MC

Down to the Wire with Halley
(SCIENCE 2 October 1981, V.214,No.4516 p.35)
(by M.Mitchell Waldrop)

Given the air of fiscal austerity in Washington these days the odds
of the Regan Administration's financing a $300 million spacecraft to
fly by Halley's comet look slimmer than ever. But until the
Administration actually says "No," the space science community is
going all out to win approval for the mission. The answer will have to
come within the next few weeks. At Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, California, planning and design work for the mission is well
along, but the schedule is very tight, says project manager Raymond L.
Heacock. If the spacecraft is to meet the comet in 1986, it must be
launched in the summer of 1985, which means that JPL must start
letting contracts no later than next January. This in turn, will be
possible only if the Halley mission is included as a new start in
NASA's fiscal year 1983 budget, which is being drawn up now.

Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geologic Survey, chairman of NASA's
Space Science Advisory Committee, voices a widespread frustration in
the space science community: "It's absolutely insidious, crazy, tragic
that we ever got ourselves into a position where we can't do a Halley
mission." But in fact, a big part of the problem is that NASA
headquarters has never really pushed for Halley. With the space
science budget being squeezed every year by the immense cost of the
space shuttle, agency officials have been more concerned about
preserving such high priority missions as the Galileo orbiter/probe
mission to Jupiter and the Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar.

Proponents of a Halley mission counter that the comet represents a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity: no other young, active comet has an
orbit that is predictable enough for planning a mission. These are the
kind of comets that are thought to retain pristine material from the
formation of the solar system, and whose dynamics are most
interesting.

Proponents have also stressed national prestige. The European Space
Agency is going to Halley with its "Giotto" spacecraft. The Japanese
are going. The Russians are going. So why aren't we going? Besides,
they say, the United States has a big lead in navigation and imaging
technology. Its close-ups of the comet, the best by far, would give
the country a public relations coup on a par with the Voyager
missions. (In fact, without such images most people will probably be
disappointed in Halley. On this trip its most spectacular displays
will occur on the far side of the sun from the earth.)

During the recent Voyager 2 encounter with Saturn, JPL director Bruce
C. Murray forcefully argued the case for Halley to presidential
advisor Edwin Meese and NASA administrator James M. Beggs. Not
surprisingly, Meese and Beggs have remained noncommittal, pending
submission of NASA's budget proposal. But presidential science advisor
George A. Keyworth is interested in the mission, and has asked NASA to
prepare a list of options for how it might be done. The space agency's
reply is expected to include the following:

* JPL's $300 million "baseline" mission. During the 60-day
"observatory phase" before encounter the spacecraft would monitor the
comet's development with some 3000 long-distance images. During the
3-hour "encounter phase" it would attempt to image the kilometer-sized
nucleus. It would also perform in situ measurements of the comet's
composition and its particle and field environment.

* A somewhat less expensive imaging/sample-return mission. This
version is attractive, says Jeffrey D. Rosendhal, deputy head of
NASA's Office of Space Science, because it would compliment the other
three missions. It would retain the observatory and encounter phase
imaging, which is unique, while dropping the in situ experiments that
duplicate those planned for ESA's Giotto. The dramatic idea of a
sample return came up only last June, very late in the game, says
Rosendhal. The spacecraft would capture a few milligrams of comet
material on what is esentially a sticky surface, then proceed on a
trajectory that would carry it back to earth some 5 years later.
Unfortunately, he adds, the sample-return technology is new, poorly
understood, and risky.

* A swing by Halley with the Galileo spacecraft as the latter heads
toward Jupiter. This is the least attractive option, says Rosendhal.
It would mean sending Galileo on a long, slow loop around the sun,
with a several-year delay in its arrival at Jupiter. Only
long-distance imaging would be possible, and from a bad angle at that.
But if the Administration cancels development of the high-thrust
Centaur booster, which is required to get Galileo to Jupiter on a more
rapid trajectory, this version of the Halley mission might be a way of
salvaging something. On the other hand, doing Galileo in this way
would add another $300 million to its cost--not far below the $445
million price tag for Centaur, and almost exactly the price of the
baseline Halley mission. -- M.Mitchell Waldrop.

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

Date: 29 Sep 1981 19:22:41-PDT
From: chico!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
To: chico!duke!unc!space@Berkeley
Subject: Sen. Proxmire

That great champion of fiscal responsibility, Sen. Proxmire, made a
16-hour speech that cost -- in lighting, printing, etc. -- $64,000.
The ostensible purpose of the speech was to prevent a needed increase
in the national debt limit -- which is going to pass anyway.  Proxmire
is the person primarily response for the demise of SETI.

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

Date: 30 Sep 1981 1350-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: Soviets reenter the manned space business   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n536  0237  30 Sep 81
BC-SPACE-09-30
    EDITORS: The following is from the London Telegraph and is for use
only in the United States and Canada.
    By Adrian Berry
    Daily Telegraph, London (Field News Service)
    LONDON - Four months after announcing the end of all manned space
flights until further notice, the Soviet Union has reversed its
position and started preparing for new flights.
    The earlier decision to halt manned space missions was taken almost
immediately after Easter's maiden flight of the American space
shuttle, which the Russians claim is a military threat to them.
    Tuesday's announcement, reported in Pravda, that the space flight
control center near Moscow is being re-equipped, suggests that the
Russians appear to have recovered from their initial panic.
    They are likely soon to launch a new manned mission toward the
Salyut 6 space station, which Wednesday begins a fifth year in orbit,
having circled the Earth more than 25,000 times.
    Salyut 6, originally designed for a working life of only 18 months,
has been visited by 16 crews, including eight non-Russian cosmonauts
from Soviet-bloc countries.
    The space station will be kept in orbit ''as long as the designers
require,'' the newspaper said Tuesday. Planners envisaged further
space stations, some of them equipped with powerful telescopes for
probing deeper into the universe.
    And others are likely to have on board instruments of espionage
which will probe more deeply into Western defenses.
    END
    
nyt-09-30-81 0538edt
***************



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

Date: 30 Sep 1981 1355-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: A second reverberating gamma ray burst discovered
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n009  0707  30 Sep 81
BC-GAMMA
By WALTER SULLIVAN
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - Examination of a backlog of recordings made in earth
orbit four years ago by the first High Energy Astronomy Observatory
has revealed a burst of gamma rays indicating a catastrophic event
far out in space, though how far and in what direction remain
unknown. The burst was followed by a half minute of 4.2-second
reverberations, suggesting its probable association with a superdense
neutron star rotating at that rate.
    Only one other such reverberating gamma ray burst has been recorded,
on March 5, 1979. The newly discovered event was detected on Oct. 29,
1977.
    The 1979 burst was detected by nine spacecraft scattered around the
solar system. By comparing precise arrival times of the burst at each
of them, it was possible to determine that it came from the direction
of the Large Magellanic Cloud, a small galaxy of stars about 200,000
light years away, not far from the outer fringes of the Milky Way.
    If the source was that far away, within seconds it must have emitted
as much energy as all the stars of the Milky Way combined. Many
astronomers believe the source was a neutron star within that star
cloud. A neutron star is formed when a large star exhausts its
nuclear fuel, cools and collapses into an object of extremely small
size, high density and rapid rotation.
    The newly recognized event was recorded by X-ray detectors placed on
the orbiting observatory by the Naval Research Laboratory under the
direction of Dr. Herbert Friedman. The detectors were able to record
the burst because, while it was primarily in gamma rays, it
overlapped the X-ray spectrum.
    The rays were too weak for recording by other spacecraft. Hence the
direction of the source has not been determined.
    The suddenness and violence of the 1979 event were difficult to
explain. As noted last week by Friedman, it soared to full power in
only 12-hundredths of a second. In the next three minutes it tapered
off, reverberating at an eight-second rate.
    One suggested explanation was that a comet fell on a neutron star
rotating every eight seconds. Another was that an asteroid fell on
the star. About 60,000 miles out, the asteroid would have begun to
disintegrate under the influence of the neutron star's extreme
gravity, stretching into a long trail of debris.
    This debris would have encircled and fallen on the star, approaching
the speed of light and, in one-billionth of a second, becoming heated
to two billion degrees Fahrenheit. This could have generated the
sharp pulse of gamma rays.
    The newly found, but earlier, burst, Friedman said, does not fit
this model. The two-second time required for the pulse to reach full
power was not compatible with an almost instantaneous impact. One
possibility, he added, might be that material that had accumulated in
orbit around the star fell on it when perturbed in some manner.
    Another explanation would be sudden contraction or some other form
of extremely massive transformation within the star.
    
nyt-09-30-81 1008edt
***************

ota - I should note that I went to a talk given by Edward Teller on this
subject and he suggested that the March 5, 1979 event was a neutron star /
asteroid (or planet) collision.  Note, however, that such a "collision"
would be more aptly described as a neutron star puncturing the planet(esimal)
and the planet very shortly afterwards exploding.



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

Date:  1 October 1981 00:14 edt
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Where are They??
To:  space at MIT-AI


Suppose every civilization has its share of Proxmires. In fact,
suppose that evolution tends to create Proxmires.

Then most of not all civilizations would not be exploring for the
same reason we are not. They're Proxmired down.

Gad, what a horrible thought.

			Paul


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

Date: 1 October 1981 06:02-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Anybody out there??
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Proxmire's reason for canceling SETI is idiotic.
Of course we don't expect meaningful duplex communication with
a civilization 1000 light-years away (thus 2000-year turnaround
time for each communication interchange).  But that isn't
the main goal of SETI, it's finding out if there is anybody out
there in the first place!  Getting that info would be VERY IMPORTANT!!
(It's hard to imagine anything more important.)
Maybe he has good reasons for canceling SETI, but the infeasibility
of meaningful duplex communication isn't one of them.

<Above is opinion of the author and doesn't necessarily represent the
view of the SPACE mailing list or DCA or its contractors>

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

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

02-Oct-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #2 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 2

Today's Topics:
			   Remove me from list
			 Against the Halley Probe
			Better than the dinosaurs
  Down to the wire with Halley - M. Mitchell Waldrop article in SCIENCE
				 Proxmire
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  1 October 1981 1359-EDT (Thursday)
From: Gregg.Podnar at CMU-10A
To: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc
Subject:  Remove me from list
Message-Id: <01Oct81 135909 GP0E@CMU-10A>

Please remove me from the direct mailing list of the Space Digest as
my time and disk allocation are too full to read them often or store
them long enough to read them. Thanks very much but I'll have to catch
up on the bb from elsewhere.			Keep 'em flying, Gregg

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

Date:  1 Oct 1981 1417-PDT
From: DIETZ at USC-ECL
Subject: Against the Halley Probe
To: space at MIT-MC


Granted, it would be nice to send a probe to Halley's comet.  Granted,
Halley's comet only visits once every 76 years.  But, is this probe
a good idea?  I'd say NO.

What we need includes:

	o Lunar polar orbiter (to look for ice at the moon's poles,
	  among other things).

	o Asteroid rendevous (preferably with an apollo asteroid)

	o A space station in low earth orbit

Every dollar spent on the halley probe is a dollar not spent on these
vital efforts.  Admittedly, they are not as sexy as a halley probe -
but consider that the sexiest program of them all, the apollo program,
set our space program back ten years.  It won't be long (if it hasn't
happened already) before people start thinking about space probes as
they did about apollo - a useless waste of taxpayer's dollars.

Our limited funds should be spent to enhance our future space effort,
not for the immediate gratification of nifty but less immediately useful
missions.  And the national prestige argument is just plain silly.
I'm sure that spending $300 million on foreign aid would boost the world's
opinion of the US a lot more.

Any rebuttals?
-------

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

Date: 1 Oct 1981 16:51:08-PDT
From: decvax!yale-comix!bj at Berkeley
To: decvax!ucbvax!space-enthusiasts@Berkeley
Subject: Better than the dinosaurs
Cc: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley

    In yesterdays space digest, DIETZ at USC-ECL said:

	Intelligence implies incredible adaptibility - so we are in
    much better shape than the dinosaurs.

That may be true, but although we may not be able to wipe out humanity,
we can come close.  The dinosaurs died, but only after about a hundred
million years.  We are now in a situation where most of humanity could
be wiped out in a day.  Just think what our intelligence will enable
us to destroy a hundred years from now.
					B.J.



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

Date: 2 October 1981 01:48-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Down to the wire with Halley - M. Mitchell Waldrop article in SCIENCE
To: AMSLER at SRI-AI
cc: "REPLY-TO:" at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

I hate to say it, but Halley is dead given the budget cuts.
Dead, dead, dead. Which is no fun, but the NASA people on top do
put LEO base as a top priority.

I have to confess that if one MUST choose, they have made right
choice. Not that I like the choices, but at 20% interest rates...

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

Date:  2 October 1981 02:59 edt
From:  Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Proxmire
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 1 October 1981 07:02 edt from Ted Anderson

"Proxmired down" is a low pun.  However, I like the innocent one
in the original message that mentioned "Proxmia Centauri".  I propose
we christen that a "Galilean Slip".

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

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

03-Oct-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #3 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 3

Today's Topics:
		 Total Nuclear War => Global Extinction?
			 Against the Halley Probe
			New Shuttle director named
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 1981 17:59:27-PDT
From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg])
To: SPACE at MC
Subject: Total Nuclear War => Global Extinction?

This is getting a little off the subject of this list, but that is
nothing new...


A one megaton nuclear blast releases 4.2E22 ergs.  The asteroid impact
that formed the Manicouagan Astrobleme released approximately 7E29 ergs,
or about 10 million megatons, which is far more than a total nuclear
war would release.  Manicouagan happened on the order of 100 million years
ago, so it obviously didn't cause global extinction.  Therefore, to a first
approximation, total nuclear war will not cause global extinction, on this
planet or any other.

Now, whether it would cause the permanent end of human or alien civilization
is another question.  There is no known data on this subject, so I think we
will have to do an experiment...
---
Jef

[For those of you who don't keep close track of these things, and were
wondering, Manicouagan appears to be in Quebec about 150 miles north
of the St. Lawrence. -ota]

[I would like to urge people not to start discussing total nuclear war on
this mailing list.  ARMS-D at MIT-MC is a mailing list devoted to
discussing, among other things, nuclear weapons and their effects and is
probably a more appropriate forum.  Send mail to ARMS-D-REQUEST@MC for
inquiries about this list.
	Ted Anderson]
------------------------------

Date:  2 October 1981 23:08 edt
From:  Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Against the Halley Probe
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 2 October 1981 07:01 edt from Ted Anderson

Pardon my ignorance.  What is so important about whether or not there is
ice at the Moon's poles?  All you basic-science folks, don't get on me.  I
mean, given a choice between the ice in Halley's comet and the ice on the
Moon, why is the latter so much more important?

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

Date: 03 Oct 1981 0154-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: New Shuttle director named
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n084  1850  02 Oct 81
AM-SHUTTLE
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - An Air Force general was named Friday to head the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's shuttle project. He
is Maj. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, a former test pilot and manager of
the F-16 fighter development program.
	. . . .
    Abrahamson, a deputy chief of staff at the Air Force Systems
Command, at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, is to become
associate administrator in charge of the Office of Space
Transportation Systems in November. He succeeds John F. Yardley, who
resigned the post in May to become president of McDonnell
Astronautics Co. in St. Louis. Abrahamson's primary responsibility
will be the completion of the troubled space shuttle's tests and its
transition to full operations.
    In announcing the appointment, James M. Beggs, the space agency
administrator, said, ''General Abrahamson's close acquaintance with
the shuttle and his excellent program management record make him
uniquely qualified to head shuttle development.''
    In 1979, when technical and cost problems were besetting the shuttle
development, Abrahamson was brought in by the space agency as a
member of a five-person board to assess the program's management and
recommend changes. Before that the 48-year-old general was a test
pilot and an astronaut with the Air Force's Manned Orbiting
Laboratory program in the 1960s.
    The appointment of an Air Force general to the post, however, is
expected to raise questions about the possibly growing military
influence over the shuttle program. At least one-third of the
shuttle's flights are expected to have military missions. Pentagon
support of the program is generally credited with having saved it
from cancellation in the 1970s.
    
nyt-10-02-81 2151edt
***************
	. . . . .
    Abrahamson, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and a combat pilot in Vietnam, was the spacecraft project officer for
the Vela nuclear detection satellite program in the early 1960s.
    The instrumented satellites were designed as orbiting watchdogs to
police adherence to the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty, which forbids
nuclear testing in the atmosphere or outer space.

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

Date:  3 Oct 1981 0300-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
To: space at MIT-MC

!n534  0206  03 Oct 81
BC-SPACE-3takes-10-03
    By Albert Sehlstedt Jr.
    (c) 1981 The Baltimore Sun (Field News Service)
    WASHINGTON - Let's not repeat the Ming Dynasty's mistake, Congress
was advised during a recent hearing on the future of the space
program.
    The Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) may seem far removed from space
shuttles, Saturn's rings, balanced budgets or Social Security
payments, but testimony at a congressional hearing touched upon a
potential parallel between the American present and the Chinese past.
    Some 500 years ago, the House subcommittee on space sciences and
applications was told, China's Ming Dynasty abruptly restricted the
operations of its superb maritime fleet that had tapped the wealth of
the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
    ''Within a century, China was being picked apart by Europeans, who
found a backward, ignorant nation that was already fragmenting into
petty principalities,'' a witness testified.
    So much for history.
    Is the United States, beset by a host of domestic and foreign
problems, ready to eliminate the space program, which has shrunk to
less than 1 percent of the total national budget?
    ''I don't want this history to repeat itself, and the hearings are
one effort toward rejuvenating our nation's space effort,'' said Rep.
Ronnie G. Flippo (D-Ala.), citing China's mistake in a statement that
set the tone for the three days of testimony on America's future in
space.
    Flippo, who was chairman of the sessions, may have diminished his
position as an unbiased observer with that partisan view, but his
panel's hearings did provide Congress with a reasoned commentary on
the virtues of the space program which, as a consequence of equally
reasoned decisions in the future, may shrink even further in the
1980s.
    Missing from the witness list was a well-known critic of the space
program, Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.), who has cut from the
national budget a program to search for radio signals from space that
would be indicative of intelligent life beyond this solar system.
    Also missing was George A. Keyworth II, who is on the record as
saying that future space policy will demand ''perceptive judgments.''
Dr. Keyworth's views are pertinent because he is the president's
science adviser.
    The adviser, expressing his views in a prepared speech in June, was
not denigrating the space program and, indeed, commented that the
initial success of the space shuttle in its April flight had
''stimulated the administration to embark on an interagency review of
questions involving its operational future, plus a number of other
vital matters concerning the direction of our space program.''
     However, Dr. Keyworth's comments hardly conveyed the enthusiasm
expressed by many of the witnesses who testified before the House
panel and who spoke of such things as ''virtually unlimited future
possibilities in space.''
     Much of the congressional testimony, from an historian, a futurist,
a banker, businessmen and scientists, followed the line that the
space program not only would pay for itself in benefits to mankind,
but would excite the minds of today's youth - the engineers and
scientists of the 21st century - and bring that generation the
lasting gratitude of history.
     ''Although we might quarrel with one another about the program's
benefits, our descendants will look back upon our times and our
generation with respect and awe,'' said Melvin Kranzberg, professor
of history at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
    ''For future generations men will recall with fascination and
admiration their 20th century ancestors who possessed the will, the
courage and the means to make the giant leap into extraterrestrial
adventures,'' Dr. Kranzberg said.
     While good reviews in history books may not enthrall citizens who
need food stamps and day-care centers, the immediate benefits of the
space program were cited as a persuasive argument by other witnesses.
    Not the least of those benefits are food, water and minerals to
support an expanding world population that is expected to double by
2015.
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has been
developing for years spacecraft instruments designed to detect such
resources as mineral deposits, large schools of fish at sea, and
fresh water that could help people of the poorer nations.
    In the field of medicine, Dr. Donlin M. Long, chairman of the
department of neurological surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, said
his work has benefited from advances in the space program.
    As an example, Dr. Long mentioned an intercranial pressure monitor
that can be implanted in the human skull through a minor operation to
record the critical changes in pressure that follow serious head
injuries.
    Another witness, Marvin J. Cetron, conceded that the space program
will not pay for itself in the short run, but he was more optimistic
about the future, meaning the next century.
    ''It will not pay for itself, let alone yield a profit,'' said
Cetron, who is president of Forecasting International, Ltd., of
Arlington, Va.
    ''Therefore,'' he continued, ''the principal reasons for continuing
the space program in the short run will be defense, prestige and
knowledge, with emphasis on the first.
    (MORE)
    
nyt-10-03-81 0507edt
**********
!n535  0217  03 Oct 81
BC-SPACE-1stadd-10-03
    X X X ON THE FIRST.
    ''Military uses will continue to predominate, although in certain
instances prestige may become very important, such as a possible
visit by Halley's Comet when it reappears in 1986.''
    (Many space enthusiasts have decried the United States' failure to
launch a spacecraft for a close look at the comet, particularly in
light of the fact that other nations, including the Soviet Union, are
thinking in those terms.)
    Cetron's reference to prestige is no small matter in space
exploration, just as a fleet of jet airliners is a cherished asset of
some small nations who, it has been argued, could spend their money
more humanely on agriculture or water purification.
    As another witness pointed out, this nation's decision to land men
on the moon was based, to a large extent, on the fact that the Soviet
Union had reaped unimagined propaganda value from its ''firsts'' in
space, such as orbiting the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1,
and putting the first man in space.
    Looking 20 years ahead, Cetron saw the space program becoming
self-supporting and bringing ''significant benefits to the civilian
economy.''
    Even more optimistic was David Hannah, Jr., leader of a Houston
company, Space Services, Inc., that hopes to launch its own rocket
next year, despite the initial failure of an engine in a ground test
last month.
    ''In my opinion,'' Hannah told the House committee, ''now is the
time for the private sector to take advantage of the tremendous
accomplishment of NASA by efficiently and responsibly developing the
resources of space for the benefit of society.
    ''Government has fulfilled its responsibility to open the new
frontier, and it is now incumbent upon Space Services and all the
companies which will follow to make the frontier accessible for
industrialization and commercialization,'' he said.
    A step in this direction has been taken by one of the giants of the
industry, Boeing Aerospace Company, which has signed an agreement
with a European corporation to market and launch low-cost satellites.
    The satellites can be used for scientific experiments, and for
communications and agricultural surveys of the Earth, Boeing has said.
    Japan, an acknowledged whiz at building automobiles and TV sets,
also is looking for ''space bucks,'' Hannah said.
    He quoted an article from Japan Times which stated that Japan's
Ministry of International Trade and Industry ''has begun taking steps
to transform Japan's space program from a loosely organized network
of research projects into an industry.
    ''Space,'' the article continued, ''will be a $4.5 billion industry
for Japanese manufacturers by the mid-1990s, comparable in size to
today's radio and television manufacturing industry.''
    An American banker was of similar mind.
    ''The movement to space will require great investment, but the
payoffs will return many times the outlay in ways both numerous and
unforeseen,'' said Hank E. Koehn, a vice president of Security
Pacific National Bank of Los Angeles.
    In this connection, Koehn reminded the House panel that the study of
chlorine reactions in the atmosphere of Venus led to the discovery
that fluorocarbons were capable of deteriorating the protective ozone
layer in Earth's upper atmosphere.
    ''Space does not represent an area of endeavor that should be
undertaken only after the problems here on Earth are solved - it may
well be the solution to those problems,'' Koehn testified.
    He told the Flippo committee that ''a new alliance of government and
business is now required for the new world of space, one that is more
commercially oriented in the granting of proprietary rights, for
example, or clearly the Soviets, Japanese and Europeans will leave us
behind.''
    It was Koehn who made the historical reference to the Chinese navy
in the Ming dynasty, then added: ''This is clearly one past we must
not allow to become prologue to our own future.''
    John D. Young, professor of public management at American University
here, spoke about the future of the space program in a political
context.
    ''Very few political leaders, regardless of party or other
convictions, will want to clearly stake themselves out for a specific
future space program that costs much more than the current one, if
that much,'' he said.
    (NASA's budget for the current fiscal year is $5.5 billion.)
    ''There is no effective constituency for such a future program when
you come face-to-face with such trade-offs as changes in Social
Security, further reductions in student assistance for middle-class
families and similar federal programs,'' Dr. Young said.
    ''The general tendency of the American electorate is to support many
things, such as the space program, until it comes to trade-offs where
the individual sees his or her self-interest at risk.''
    Banking and politics aside, another committee witness spoke of
bringing the space program to Main Street by establishing
''neighborhood space centers'' in cities and towns.
    These retail establishments would be financed with the sales of
pictures, books, slides and other space paraphernalia to acquaint the
public with some of the things beyond the atmosphere they breathe.
    (MORE)
    
nyt-10-03-81 0518edt
**********
!n536  0220  03 Oct 81
BC-SPACE-2ndadd-10-03
    X X X ATMOSPHERE THEY BREATHE.
    ''These space centers would be similar to ... 7-Eleven stores where,
readily available on the street corners and in the shopping centers,
are all the glories of the space program,'' said Stan Kent, president
of a group of space buffs called Delta Vee, Inc.
    Kent, an aeronautical engineer and graduate of Stanford University,
said one such neighborhood store already has opened in Los Gatos,
Calif., and plans are under way for similar centers - ''a sort of
McDonald's in space'' - in other communities.
    ''Plain and simply,'' he said of his organization, ''we want to
increase the speed with which we explore space.''
    He explained to the congressmen that the name of his corporation,
Delta Vee, is taken from the technical shorthand of space scientists
and engineers. The Greek letter delta, and the Roman letter ''v,''
when written together, denote a change in velocity.
    Kent said his nonprofit company represents 15,000 people who make
small contributions to support space projects. He brought to the
hearing 2,000 letters ''representing a sample of our constituency.''
    He spread the letters out on the witness table in front of him,
commenting that the mail convinced him that ''the public desperately
wants to be a part of the space program.'' It was apparent that
Kent's group was, indeed, ready for a change in velocity of the space
program.
    END
    
nyt-10-03-81 0521edt
**********
-------

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

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

04-Oct-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #4 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 4

Today's Topics:
	  What's all this fuss about water on moon? - An answer.
		    Address of Los Gatos Space Store?
				 Proxmire
			       extinction?!
		     Why we need water from the moon
			 Against the Halley Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 October 1981 07:46-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: What's all this fuss about water on moon? - An answer.
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Here's why it's so important to find ice on the moon.

The moon has plenty of Oxygen, Silicon, Aluminum, Titanium,
and lots of other things we need to build space-stations of
enormous size, support life in these stations, and build
large solar-energy collectors. Two problems.  There's hardly
any Hydrogen or Carbon in moonrocks near the equator (where
the astronauts landed), both of which are essential to producing
food in space.  It would be a real pain if we had to send all
the Carbon and Hydrogen from Earth.  We suspect there's lots of
carbon in carbonaceous-chondrite asteroids.  Thus the remaining
major problem is finding Hydrogen.

Even if we found Hydrogen on Halley's comet this time around,
we wouldn't be able to harvest it until 76 years later. So
in the meantime we'd have to bring it from Earth or Jupiter,
both very expensive.  But if we find water in the cold places
on the moon where it has remained for 4.5 billion years due
to extreme cold and moderate gravity, we can extract the Hydrogen.

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

Date: 3 October 1981 08:06-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Address of Los Gatos Space Store?
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Does anybody know the address&phone, or even the name (I can call
directory assistance if I have the name), of the neighborhood space store
in Los Gatos?  I might like to take good old public transit down there
some afternoon and look the place over, maybe buy some Voyager pictures.

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

Date: 3 Oct 1981 0727-PDT
From: BART at CIT-20
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Subject: Proxmire

The one I like best is the epithet uttered by an Air Force general,
"A Proxmire on you!"

-Bart Locanthi

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

Date: 3 Oct 1981 12:28:49-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: jef at lbl-unix
Subject: extinction?!
Cc: space at mit-mc

   Calculations concerning the formation of an astrobleme are irrelevant
to questions of nuclear destruction, since it has long been a truism that
10 1-megaton bombs will produce far more widespread "useful" destruction
than 1 10-megaton bomb (the bigger a bomb is, the more of its energy is
spent just burning a big hole in the ground). Further, most material
I've seen about astroblemes suggests that their formation was not
accompanied by the release of vast amounts of high-flying radioactives.
With regard to this, isn't there anyone out there with some hard numbers
about the probability (given a major nuclear war) of an ON THE BEACH
scenario?

   It is a common idea in SF (or was in the 50's and 60's) that we are on
the brink of nuclear destruction precisely because we developed so much
faster than the average. The problem is that this presupposes something
unique in our genetic or environmental makeup; without something to
compare against, this is a useless supposition. Fredric Brown, by
contrast, suggested that there is only a small window during which a
civilization can survive before collapsing into decadence, and that we are
immortal precisely because of the regenerating effect of a total nuclear
and [supernuclear] war (this being the 7th in a line of civilizations that
includes Mu and Atlantis); this is horrifying but thoroughly improbable.
Figures in a recent ASIMOV'S indicate that even a "Bussard ramjet" would
make, at most, about .17 c (?), but this ups the time to colonize the
galaxy to a million years or more at the hazard of substantial radiation
exposure; how much common ground and goal would remain after this period?
Finally, there is the chance that this prospect would daunt any race and
that a "hyperdrive" just can't be made on anything greater than a
subatomic scale, which would make a project like SETI all the more
important (cf Spinrad's recent SONGS FROM THE STARS---incredibly obnoxious
except for that one good idea).

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

From: MINSKY@MIT-AI
Date: 10/03/81 13:05:36
Subject: Why we need water from the moon

MINSKY@MIT-AI 10/03/81 13:05:36
To: TAVERES.MULTICS at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC
CC: MINSKY at MIT-AI

Water on the moon could be important for practical lunar industry,
because there is virtually no hydrogen in the lunar surface, while
virtually all our chemical processes and rocket fuels depend on
hydrogen.  If there is condensed water near the surface of the lunar
poles (the only places that never gets hot) then exploitation of lunar
materials becomes much more plausible.

Also, a polar, rotary-slingshot launching system should be explored,
because it might be magnitudes simpler than magnetic guns.

The worst thing about the moon is lack of carbon in the surface
material, which would exclude organic synthesis in large quantities.
This is annoying, for example, becausevirtually all plastics and
adhesives currently in use on Earth involve carbon.  Many chemists
believe that with sufficient motivation, inorganic plastics and
adhesives could be developed.

I believe that with hard-landed teleoperator technology, perhaps with
a small permanent moon base of a hundred tons or so and a handful of
people, a lunar industry could be established at interestingly small
costs, e.g., under 100B, including facilities for launching materials
back to earth orbit.  If there is water, then the launched material
could include packages of rocket fuel that could be used inexpensively
to get the stuff into earth orbit.  There are proposals to use
aluminum and oxygen, both plentiful on the moon, for rocket fuel, but
obviously hydrogen is much lighter.  Can provide references if any
interest.


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

Date: 3 October 1981 13:36-EDT
From: Hans P. Moravec <HPM at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Re lunar icepockets - this will be one of a dozen responses but ...
I think we should find ice on the moon so that when I go to live
near there I can take long showers and not have to squeeze my oxygen
out of rocks ...   Actually I don't mind about the oxygen 

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

Date: 4 October 1981 05:16-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
To: McLure at SRI-AI
cc: "REPLY-TO:" at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE ON THE MING DYNASTY Navy and the State
decision to cancel the Navy and allow Europeans to dominate (the
Ming Navy met Vasco De Gama at Madagascar...) was by Arthur
Kantrowitx.
	Kantrowitz, now professor of physics at Dartmouth, was
formerly chief scientist at Avco Everett.
	Dr. Kantrowitz is the newly-elected Chairman of the
Board of the L-5 Society.

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

Date: 4 October 1981 05:49-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Against the Halley Probe
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: "REPLY-TO:" at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

	Unfortunately, given scarce resources to allocate, I
have to agree that Halley is not a mission NASA should pay for.
	I am not as convinced that putting one in the Soviet
eyeball isn't worthwhile; but that should be paid for by Dept of
State, or the National Security Council, not by NASA.
	In my judgment (as stated in the Council Report;
((Citizen's Council on National Space Policy, report available
at $4.50 postpaid from L-5 Society 1060 E Elm Tucson AZ 85719)
NASA primary function should be to develop new national
capabilities; missions must be secondary to technology
acquisition.

	Lunar Polar mission is important because if there is
water ice at the Lunar poles, there is a real chance that a
lunar polar base could be made self-sufficient in a surprisingly
short time; and wouldn't be so very expensive since colonists do
not expect to return to Earth (and thus need not take lots of
fuel etc with them; can be supported by hard landed capsules.)
	There are plans for power stations at lunar poles;
stations which can supply power to industrial satellites in
earth orbit; there are even plans for beaming power from the
Moon to Earth, although I am not convinced by this one.
Still, it is not so expensive to put a colony on the Moon as one
might think; and the power availability there is pretty high,
with large surface areas, and lots of stuff to work with
(including possibility of turning regolith into fairly good
low-grade colar collectors by automated machinery.)
	I do fear the Halley is dead anyway. The latest budget
cuts diud NOT hit NASA with 12% for fy 82, but they are severe
enough that Halley -- and very likely Galileo -- are gone.  NASA
Dep Admin Hans Mark uts his priorities at (1) getting Shuttle
fully operational, and (2) getting a permanent US manned
presence in space.
	To do that he's got to cooperate with the deep pockets,
= military, which is an obvious reason for Abrahamson taking
over shuttle.
	There's only one deep pocket in Washington now, and
that's over at te five-sided funny farm.

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

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

05-Oct-81  0401	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #5 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 5

Today's Topics:
		       Re: What should we pay for ?
		Conservation and mining rights on the moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  4 Oct 1981 (Sunday) 1446-EDT
From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus)
Subject: Re: What should we pay for ?
To:   pourne at MIT-MC, space at MIT-MC

Jerry,

For once we agree. That is unusual.  There are a few things I would
like to mention.

We should spend more money/effort on:
  
  o Basic Research   --  Rocket technology, re-entry technology (I
                         seriously don't believe bathroom tiles are the
                         answer), course/navigation technology, 
                         fabrication and industrial technology, and
                         so forth.

  o Long range space research.  X-Ray orbital studies and the like.

  o Psyiological research, understanding more in the effects of 
                         extended space, research into true artifical
                         gravity.  I forsee in my lifetime a long
                         space mission.

Hank

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

Date: 4 October 1981 18:53-EDT
From: Landon M. Dyer <ZEMON at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Conservation and mining rights on the moon
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC


	Just what will rabid enviromentalists and lawyers think of
strip-mines on the moon?  All that precious polar water-ice [if there
is any] being gobbled up by a huge corporation (the US govt.) for
fuel.  Gee, isn't it an irreplacable natural resouce?

	More to the point; are there any UN rulings governing the
claiming or mining of substances in space?  Are you allowed to
mine for things with (/real/ clean) nuclear bombs, or do you have
to ship up more mundane heavy mining equipment?

	Also, who has the rights to anything discovered?  (I would
suspect that the moon's surface can be treated (in a legal sense) much
in the same way that the ocean floor is currently being handled.
Can anyone verify or correct me on this?)

			-Landon-

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

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

06-Oct-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #6 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:
			 Re:  SPACE Digest V2 #5
	Avoiding war, avoiding running out of oil, into space now!
		     Summary of immediate priorities
			 Re:  SPACE Digest V2 #5
		Conservation and mining rights on the moon
			 Letter writing campaigns
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 1981 11:39:33-PDT
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
To: ZEMON@MIT-MC, duke!decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: Re:  SPACE Digest V2 #5
Cc: POURNE@MIT-MC

There is a draft treaty on lunar rights, etc., that is (I think) signed
but not ratified by the U.S.  A strong opposition to the treaty has
grown up, claiming that provisions declaring it to be "the common
heritage of all mankind" would discourage private enterprise, since
there'd be no guarantee of profits.  Jerry Pournelle wrote a column on
it in Analog several months ago (guess which side he's on...); I'm sure
he can provide the reference more easily than I can.  My own opinion
after reading his column was that the language was fairly vague, and
not likely to be a problem.  Then again, I do have views on collective
responsibilities, etc., that I'm *sure* he doesn't agree with....

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

From: REM@MIT-AI (Sent by ___052@MIT-AI)
Date: 10/05/81 20:08:53
Subject: Avoiding war, avoiding running out of oil, into space now!

REM@MIT-AI (Sent by ___052@MIT-AI) 10/05/81 20:08:53 Re: Avoiding war, avoiding running out of oil, into space now!
To: ARMS-D at MIT-AI, SPACE at MIT-AI
Re needing oil to get into space: There's a critical window now when we have
developed the technology to bootstrap ourselves into space, and we haven't yet
exhausted the oil that made the industrial revolution possible. Once we get
into space, have industry there to convert solar radiation into usable energy
and convert moonrocks and asteroids into materials and fuels, we will be able
to get along without oil. There's such a vast amount of energy and fuel out
there in space that we could have robots out there manufacture foam-steel (iron
from metallic asteroids) filled with hydrogen gas (hydrogen from water from
lunar poles and/or asteroids/comets) and just drop it to Earth to be used here,
or beam microwaves down and decompose seawater here. With vast surplusses of
energy, there are amazing things that can be done. They don't even have to be
efficient in terms of energy, because after all we're right now wasting
99.99997% of energy from the sun, so even if we get only 1% efficiency in our
actual process we're doing several orders of magnitude better than we're doing
currently by just letting it go to waste. The critical thing is bootstrapping,
we have to use processes that don't require much from Earth, that get
themselves bigger and bigger as they produce materials to be incorporated into
their own selves. -- Now here's the rub. If we have a nuclear war or we spend
the next 30 years "conserving" instead of developing space energy and
manufacturing, we'll no longer have all this nice Petrolium, and it'll be
harder to make rocket ships and other things to get the whole process started.
If we wait too long, we may never again be able to get to space, and we'll
stagnate here on Earth until we get wiped out.

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

Date: 5 Oct 1981 19:04:02-PDT
From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg])
To: SPACE at MC

Apologies to all for my recent seemingly off-the-wall message about
nuclear war and global extinction.  As Ted guessed, it was supposed
to go to ARMS-D.  Blush, pound head on keyboard, tear hair, etc...
---
Jef

(I hope I got this one right.)

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

Date: 5 October 1981 22:36-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Sender: ___155 at MIT-MC
Subject: Summary of immediate priorities
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Here's what seems to me to be the concensus on what's important in space:
(1) Space Transport System (shuttle), to get people and equipment into low
 Earth orbit -- Although the 5th orbiter would be nice, at the present the
 project has enough money and just has to work out the technical problems.
(2) LEO (Low Earth Orbit station, also known as space operations center),
 a place to house personnel and experiments BETWEEN shuttle flights --
 I think this is funded but we have to keep it funded, not let it get cut.
 (Was it cut last week? I don't know.)
(3) Lunar-polar-orbiter, survey polar regions for water ice, needed to get
 hydrogen for use in life-support, fuels, and manufacturing processes --
 No funding presently, we urgently need funding for this!!
(4) Asteroid-carbon-assey, land on various asteroids and assey the material
 to see how much carbon they contain, needed for life-support and many many
 industrial materials used in manufacturing (glue, lubricant, steel, fuels)
 -- No funding presently, we urgently need funding for this!!
Once the above have all been accomplished, assuming the asseys show enough
 hydrogen and carbon for our needs, we can then proceed to build colonies
 on one of the polar regions on the moon, to process by remote control
 from Earth or LEO the lunar rock and water-ice, and we can seriously
 plan towards bringing an asteroid into Earth orbit to mine it for carbon
 and metals.

Of less practical use, but of immense scientific value, are Galileo (probe
 Jupiter's atmosphere and survey the moons; funded but in danger of being
 cut), Halley (take pictures and analyze chemical content of Halley's comet;
 not funded, probably already too late to get funding, sigh), Solar polar
 mission (half-funded, sigh), Large Space Telescope (funded last I heard).

Did I leave out anything important?  Errata?
Oh yes, almost forgot, SEPS (Solar Electric Propulsion System), useful
for long space trips but not urgent presently.

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

Date: 6 October 1981 04:22-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re:  SPACE Digest V2 #5
To: chico!duke!unc!smb at UCB-C70
cc: ZEMON at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC,
    duke!decvax!ucbvax!space at UCB-C70

Re the Moon Treaty: regardless of one's views on "collective
responsibility" (whatever that means--does it mean no one is
responsible since we all are?) vague language which becomes,
under our Constitution, "supreme law of the land" is an
invitation for lawyers to become wealthy while whatever the
treaty concerned languishes.
	This is as true of the Moon Treaty as anything else.
However, the subject is a dead letter.  the Reagin
Administration has no intention of submittiing that mess to the
Senate (and for that matter, both Republican and Democrat
leaders on the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate have
declared the Treaty not to be in the best interests of the USA.)

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

Date: 6 October 1981 04:39-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Conservation and mining rights on the moon
To: ZEMON at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

SOME environmentalists have alrady spoken: it is sacrilege (and
a violation of the rights of American Indians who worship the
Moon) to mar its surface, including strip mining.
	I wish I were kidding.
	Observation: enough lunar material to build a dozen
space solar power stations would be dug by a single bulldozer,
and the "blemish" could not be seen from Earth with the best
telescopes available.
	ah. well.

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

Date: 6 October 1981 05:34-EDT
From: Steve Kudlak <FFM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Letter writing campaigns
To: SPACE at MIT-MC


L-5 wants to do another letter writing campaign to
try to stop budget cuts(or reverse??) being applied
to NASA. They recommend writing to V.P. Bush at the
following address:

		
			Vice President Bush
			Space Policy Council
			Executive Office Building
			Washington, D.C. 20501

(**Please include thisin space digest if it is not a duplication of
previous message**)


Have fun
Sends Steve

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

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

07-Oct-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #7 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 7

Today's Topics:
			     Energy in Space
			   SPACE Digest V2 #6 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  6 Oct 1981 0815-PDT
From: DIETZ at USC-ECL
Subject: Energy in Space
To: space at MIT-MC

It seems to be gosple that "space is filled with free unlimited energy".
Is it free?  Compare the cost of a (say) 50KW diesel motor/generator and
a similar soloar powered unit in space.  I think the capital costs for
the space power unit are going to be at least an order of magnitude higher.
"But we save all that oil!"  Yes, we save oil, but with all the extra
money we spent on the solar unit we probably could have extracted more
oil than we saved.

Advocates of SPS ignore the fact that it is far too capital intensive.
And what is our biggest economic problem today?  Lack of capital - it's
all being consumed (that's wwhy interest rates are so high).  Solve this
problem, and the 'energy crisis' evaporates (without SPS).
-------

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

Date: 7 October 1981 04:51-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #6 
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

Attempt to undigestify gives bad digest format.

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

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

08-Oct-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #8 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:
			     Energy in Space
			     Energy in Space
			     Energy in Space
			 Letter writing campaigns
			Bussard ramjet speed limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  7 Oct 1981 17:30:47 EDT (Wednesday)
From: Mike Lease <mlease at BBNP>
Subject: Energy in Space
To: Dietz at USC-ECL, SPACE at MIT-MC
Cc: mlease at BBNP

Reply to:  MLEASE at BBN-UNIX


The problem with fossil fuels is that they are in limited supply,
not that there is a temporary shortage of them.  I agree that the
cost of an SPS system would be steeper than the cost of a "50KW
diesel motor/generator"; but the SPS may well be usable a century
from now, whereas the fuel for the generator will in all probability
have been used up by then.  Of course, I am not taking into account
wear and tear on the SPS -- anyone have any guesstimates on that
issue?  Anyway, what we need to do is begin searching for renewable
sources of energy while we still have non-renewable ones left to
enable us to do so, and SPS is one of the sources we should investigate.

Mike Lease

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

Date: 8 October 1981 00:19-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Energy in Space
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I agree.  If we try to simply build an SPS now from Earth materials, and
assemble it in space, it'll be too expensive (capital intensive).  We have
to first establish industry in space, so we can process lunar and
asteroid/comet materials, and build an SPS when that industry is
sufficiently well along that building an SPS becomes cost-effective.
Meanwhile, after we establish industry, but before we can afford SPS, we
can do energy-intensive materials production (aluminum mostly) in space
and send the finished product to Earth.  There's so much titanium in
moonrocks that maybe we'll also extract titanium and send it to Earth, in
fact that might be cost-effective before aluminum is, simply because the
Earth-price of titanium is so much higher.  I suspect it's fairly easy to
run simple aluminum and titanium extraction by remote control, moreso than
running SPS-manufacturing/assembling devices.

Summary: (1) Assays of lunar-polar and asteroid for hydrogen&carbon
	 (2) Lunar-polar remote-control water extraction
	 (3) Lunar-polar remote-control aluminum&titanium-extraction
	 (4) Catching an asteroid and r-c extracting carbon&iron
	 ...
I hopw we get funding for (1) soon.

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

Date: 8 October 1981 01:21-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Energy in Space
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

1.	Space solar power systems may or may not be economical
for delivery of power to Earth; but they seem very useful for
delivery of power IN SPACE.  Industrial, experimental, and, yes,
military systems in space will need power; someone will get it
and use it; it matters little whether they speak Japanese,
Swahili, Russian, or American, except possibly to US citizens.
From my viewpoint it is easier to learn to get along with US
than to learn Russian.

2.	90% of the resources available to mankind are not on
Earth. Someone will get them. If not us, who? If not now, when?

3.	We kill some 50,000 people a year with burining oil and
coal. Nuclear, I grant you, appears to be far safer and
healthier, but it is also politicially  and economically
impossible. True, it is economically impossible for diabolical
reasons: those who hate it do things which run up the costs and
then say it is uneconomical, the moral equivalent of those who
cut off a person's legs and then castigate him for not making a
living; but it is still economically impossible.  What, then
shall we use?  Shall we drain America first? We ship $50 billion
a year off to foreign lands for oil each year (perhaps more; I
use the lowest figure I have ever heard); the whole SPS project
is only $100 billion, ALL OF WHICH IS SPENT IN THE US, and which
is very likely to return us a very great deal in fallout
technological benefits; which I have not heard that investment
in security forces for Saudi Royalty does for us.

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

Date: 8 October 1981 01:47-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Letter writing campaigns
To: FFM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	Bush is more than 50% probable chance to be President
within 10 years; he is known to favor space; he gets little
mail. 

	JEP

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

Date: 8 Oct 1981 00:28:19-PDT
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: Bussard ramjet speed limit

Since I haven't seen anybody else demolish the myth about the 0.17c
speed limit on Bussard ramjets, here goes.  The article in Asimov's
was not the first recognition of the problem;  contrary to what was
said in the article, this problem has been known for years, but has
not been trumpeted out loud because there is a straightforward fix.
It is reasonably obvious to anyone who does a real analysis of the
Bussard ramjet instead of relying on analogy from "ordinary" jets.
(In the following, all velocities etc. are with respect to the ship.)

The purported speed limit works as follows:  thrust from the expulsion
of fusion-engine exhaust is counterbalanced by intake drag from
fast-moving incoming fuel hitting the ramscoop field, so net momentum
transfer to the gas stream works out to be zero.  With some simplifying
assumptions, the speed limit equals the engine exhaust velocity;  it
is easy to set an upper bound on this based on the reactions involved.

The mistake is to assume that the kinetic energy of the incoming fuel
is necessarily converted to heat or some other useless form.  WRONG!
Suppose instead we decelerate the incoming protons against an electric
field.  The momentum IS transferred, but the energy is stored as
potential energy.  We use that stored energy to further accelerate
the outgoing exhaust by letting the protons fall down the other side
of the same electric-field potential hill.  Other variations are
possible, but the principle remains the same:  use the kinetic energy
rather than wasting it.

There is still some momentum transfer, because the same amount of
kinetic energy does not mean the same amount of momentum at different
velocities.  The exhaust acceleration is less effective at producing
momentum because it is applied to already fast-moving material.  But
this is a lesser effect;  barring losses, there is always a nonzero
net momentum transfer to the gas stream (unless relativity introduces
some subtle complication at extreme velocities;  not my specialty).
Of course there WILL be losses, and integrating this with a ramscoop
may be a lot of fun, but those are problems of technology, not
fundamental physics.

In any event, the ramscoop is the EASY part of a Bussard ramjet, by
current thinking:  the HARD part is getting a decent reaction rate
out of a fusion reaction burning ordinary hydrogen.  Building a
ramscoop is a formidable engineering problem, but a fast proton-proton
reactor involves nasty difficulties of fundamental physics.  It may
be necessary to go to an internal energy source, either ordinary
fusion (the "ram-augmented rocket" scheme) or antimatter.  The latter
is the more interesting:  antimatter-heated rockets have rather (!)
high performance themselves, and adding "free" reaction mass makes
it even better.

To sum up:  the near-c Bussard ramjet is not impossible, it's just
complicated, difficult, and not quite the way it was visualized.

					Henry Spencer



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

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

09-Oct-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #9 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 9

Today's Topics:
			       Energy & SPS
			      Finite energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  8 Oct 1981 1132-PDT
From: DIETZ at USC-ECL
Subject: Energy & SPS
To: space at MIT-MC

Another problem with SPS is the incredibly long lead time.  This is the same
problem with nuclear plants also (although some of the dealy may be caused
by the anti-techs and government regulations).  Freeman Dyson has pointed
out that the best engineering projects are those with a lead time of less
than 5 years, because after you pass this point the problems begin changing
faster than the solutions.  Also, it becomes very difficult to correct
mistakes (like using scaled up SUBMARINE reactors (!) for nuclear plants).
This is the crux of the matter.  Who is going to invest in SPS when it is
(admit it) so risky?  There's a good chance that some other inexpensive
energy source (dirt cheap solar cells, fusion, bacteria that make gasoline)
will be developed before it's even off the ground.

J.P. suggests using solar power in military missions.  Wouldn't a solar
powered military satellite be very vulnerable to attack?

Finally, I had the impression that it's hard to use lot of power in space
because of problems in disappating waste heat (only radiation, no convection).
Is this correct?  It wouldn't be a problem with a SPS (the thing is large
enough to cool easily) but might be a problem with, say, refining metals
in large quantities.  Here's a question for the physically minded: how
long does a 1 kg. spherical piece of molten aluminum take to cool to
a reasonable temperature? 1000 kg.?

-------

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

Date: 8 Oct 1981 23:02:53-PDT
From: E.jeffc at Berkeley
To: v:space@mit-mc
Subject: Finite energy

Actually, what is all this talk about limited energy anyway?  Ok, we'll
run out of oil soon, and nuclear power has been made uneconomical by
the lunatics in our society, but what about fusion energy???????
I say we should develope that as fast as possible.  It is superior
to SPS anyway for very good reasons.  First, it will not be as capital
intensive.  Second, it permits much higher energy densities to be
realized.  The problem with solar power in any form is that it is
deluted.  Sure, you can collect as much energy as you want with a 
large enough collector, but the density of that energy is rather low
compared to that provided by a fusion reaction.  In order to run our
every increasingly technological society, we will not only need more
energy, but in higher densities as well.  This would be true even in
a space environment.  A spaceship of the future will obviously have
a fusion drive, if possible, and a large space station, or city if
you want, will need simply too much energy to be feasibly supplied
by a solar collector.  I believe that solar power is good for running
a eco-system, and transitor radios, and very little else.


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

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

10-Oct-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #10
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:
		      Vague wording of Lunar treaty
			 Costs of SPS vs. fusion
			      Budget cutting
			   Soviet space effort
				Catch-22 
			       Energy & SPS
			      Finite energy
			  SPS vs. Nuclear Power
			       comet => sun
			       Energy & SPS
			Bussard ramjet speed limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 October 1981 11:20-EDT
From: Stephen C. Hill <STEVEH at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Vague wording of Lunar treaty
To: decvax!duke!unc!smb at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE-LOVERS at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC, ZEMON at MIT-MC

I have to deal with lawyers every day.  One of the things that
I have learned is that the more vague a contract (law, treaty,
etc.) is written, there is a direct correlation with the
difficulty in servicing it.  (God, what horrible
construction!!)  Vague is only good in policy statements, NOT
in contracts, etc.
                             Steve

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

Date:  9 Oct 1981 1034-CDT
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Costs of SPS vs. fusion
To: space at MIT-MC

	An SPS would be VERY expensive, but don't fool yourself about
fusion (if/when achieved) being cheap.  It is not unrealistic to expect
the early fusion power systems to be on a par of cost-effectiveness
and complexity of the early fission power reactors, at a much higher
capitialzation cost than equivilant fission power.
	Eventually, fusion may well become cheap, but for a long-term
investment, an SPS should more effective. (For one thing, the raw
material for an SPS is continually provided without cost of money
or delta-vee to get it into space).

-------

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

Date: 09 Oct 1981 0955-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Budget cutting
To:   space at MIT-MC  


I hear from some of the local L-5 people that Ronnie has seen fit to
subject NASA to the following plan of budget amputation:

FY82:  6% additional cut (as opposed to the 12% cut that was scheduled)
FY83:  a $1 billion dollar cut
FY84:  *another* $1 billion dollar cut

leaving NASA with an FY84 budget of about $3.5 billion.  This implies
cancellation of Galileo and dropping the option on the fourth orbiter.
It may even imply turning off Voyager 2 and missing the Uranus flyby.

Another interesting fact that appeared on a local PBS show a few days
ago (I don't remember the name but it was on KQED and had Ben Bova,
Eric Burgess, and Charles Petit (science writer for one of the local
San Francisco papers, and who made the following comments)).  Apparently
the NASA folk have taken to displaying pictures of the planned four
Shuttle orbiters with the middle two (Challenger and Atlantis, I think)
painted with Air Force insignia.  And remember, we stand an all too
good chance of losing the fourth (the other NASA) orbiter.

I am not reflexively opposed to the military presense in space, but
I am not particularly happy about it, either.  But a PURELY military
presense in space is intolerable.  And they are the only ones that
Ronnie isn't cutting.

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

Date: 9 Oct 1981 1141-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Soviet space effort
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-AI
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 9-Oct-81 11:41:31.WMARTIN>

I have just finished a rather interesting history of the Russian
man-in-space effort by James Oberg, RED STAR IN ORBIT.  Recent
Space discussions mentioning Soviet efforts lead me to think that
this subject is topical and this book is a worthwhile source of
information.  I recommend it.

Will Martin

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

Date: 09 Oct 1981 1611-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Catch-22 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a062  0522  09 Oct 81
PM-Space Pavilion,420
Proxmire Says Space Agency Acted Improperly
By JAMES H. RUBIN
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The space agency improperly solicited $5 million
from aerospace companies to set up a pavilion at the 1982 World's Fair
in Knoxville, Tenn., Sen. William Proxmire charged today.
    Proxmire said James Beggs, head of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, ''overstepped his mandate'' in seeking to
''promote industry participation in a commercial venture.''
    He said Beggs' actions appear to be ''a serious breach of the
arms-length relations which should exist between the federal
government and the firms with which it does business.''
    In a letter to Proxmire, D-Wis., Beggs replied that NASA was acting
as ''a neutral broker'' in plans for the space pavilion.
    Beggs acknowledged that he hosted two meetings for the aerospace
industry, inviting 40 major companies to his office last month to
discuss their sponsorship of the pavilion. But he denied that he
solicited any money.
    ''It was very clearly stated that while NASA supported the
(pavilion) concept in principle, it would take no part in solicitation
of support by individual companies or in suggesting the level of
support,'' Beggs said.
    Aerospace Daily, which disclosed Beggs' role in its Oct. 1 issue,
reported that the companies were urged to contribute specific amounts
to the pavilion. It was recommended, for example, that Rockwell
International pay $1 million, IBM $750,000 and Grumman Aerospace Corp.
$400,000, the magazine said.
    The trade publication quoted company officials anonymously as saying
they felt the government's role was coercive and ill-advised.
    A spokesman for Rockwell said he would not comment because the
officials familiar with the pavilion plans were not available.
    A spokeswoman for IBM, who requested her name not be used, said the
company did not feel any undue pressure but has not decided if it
will take part in the fair.
    Bob Harwood, a spokesman for Grumman, said ''we don't feel there was
undue pressure from the government. We have been contacted frequently
by the fair.'' He said that Grumman may contribute to the pavilion
but ''nowhere near'' the figure the fair managers suggested.
    Beggs said that, ''At no time was NASA consulted about the amount
nor are we aware today of the amount proposed to each company.''
    The telegram inviting the companies to the meeting in Beggs' office
said the firms should take part in the fair because it ''offers us an
unusually good and very timely opportunity to tell the American
public a positive story about the potential of space.''
    In response to a question from Proxmire, Beggs said that the only
cost to taxpayers from the meetings was $512 for the telegrams
inviting the companies.
    
ap-ny-10-09 0810EDT
***************

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

Date: 9 October 1981 19:43-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Energy & SPS
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Getting rid of heat in space manufacturing?  No problem.
We assume you're mining various raw materials from the moon and
other places and using them to make useful materials.
The moon has a lot of oxygen.  Probably a great surplus for
most manufacturing operations.  So you simply pump oxygen
around the place you want to cool and then dump the hot oxygen
into space. Of course, for things that don't want to be exposed
to oxygen, you use the same trick that nuclear power plants (which
don't want to be exposed to ocean saltwater) use, you use the oxygen
(a la seawater) to cool some working fluid that is in closed cycle,
and use this working fluid to cool your actual workstuff.
Discarding oxygen into space is probably cheaper than building
giant cooling fins and recirculating the oxygen thru the fins.
(Needed, an engineer to validate or refute my claim.)

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

Date: 9 October 1981 20:01-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Finite energy
To: E.jeffc at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

You apparently don't understand how SPS works.
We build giant solar colectors miles across, either to reflect
solar energy to a central boiler or other conversion unit,
or to collect and convert in situ such as by solar cells.
In either case, all this energy is channeled to a single location,
where it is beamed to where it is needed.  It's irrelevant that
the original radiant energy is disperse.  After SPS collects it,
it's concentrated and can be used for all sorts of energy-intensive
tasks, providing these tasks sit in space without moving a lot
relative to the SPS.  For things that move, such as spaceships,
we have to add another step, converting the raw materials and
the SPS energy into some type of fuel.

Why doesn't this same idea work on Earth? Because the Earth is
very small.  An object 10 miles wide and 10 miles long sitting
on the Earth collecting sunlight, isn't environmentally
acceptable.  If you put it in the saraha desert, you have to
protect it against sandblasting, and also figure out a way to
deliver the energy to the USA or other industrial places, you
can't beam it by microwave because it isn't line-of-sight.
But in space, where it's 225,000 miles to the moon
and 93,000,000 miles to the sun, there's immense empty space
in which to station these solar-collecting stations without
getting in anybody's way.  Also the liquid fuel you make for shapeships
doesn't have to be lifted up from Earth before it can be used,
because it's already in space if you make it there.
(Also the atmosphere blocks most of
solar energy, so SPS in space is more efficient. But that's
only a factor of about 2 so I saved that argument for last.
We're talking about a factor of 3 thousand million even if
we ignore that factor of 2.)

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

Date: 10 Oct 1981 00:21:25-PDT
From: menlo70!hao!woods at Berkeley
To: menlo70!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: SPS vs. Nuclear Power

   There are 2 problems with those people who think that nuclear power can
solve our energy needs (well, 3 actually). They are:

1) They label their opponents "radicals" or "lunatics", instead of what we are,
which is just ordinary people whose philosophy happens to be different. We
have what we consider just and valid reasons for opposing nuclear power, just
as you have what you consider valid reasons for supporting it.

2) They forget that nuclear power depends on uranium and other nuclear fuels,
which have the same problem as petroleum, i.e. they are a finite resource. 
What are we going to do when we run out of uranium in 200 years? Nuclear 
power can at best, postpone the finite resource problem a few years, but will
NOT solve it. We MUST develop renewable energy resources like solar power, and
extend our supply of finite resources through programs like space research for
energy development.

3) There still is not an acceptable solution to the waste problem, and it has
not been shown (at least not to my satisfaction) that there won't be a 
catastrophic accident someday. Look what almost happened at 3-mile island.
I suppose there will have to be a major accident before those who have invested
heavily in nuclear power (including the US government) will recognize the 
danger.

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

Date: 10 Oct 1981 0102-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
Subject: comet => sun
To: space at MIT-MC

!a016  2352  09 Oct 81
PM-Sun-Comet Collision,250
Comet Reported to Have Collided with Sun
    WASHINGTON (AP) - A comet collided violently with the sun two years
ago, spraying debris over millions of miles of the solar system, the
Naval Research Laboratory reports.
    The event, recorded by satellite instruments, is the first positive
evidence of a celestial body colliding with the sun, Dr. Donald J.
Michels, an NRL scientist, disclosed Friday. It also marks the first
time a comet has been discovered by a satellite.
    Michels said the collision, which occurred Aug. 30, 1979, was
recorded in a Naval Research Laboratory experiment SOLWIND, operating
aboard a Defense Department payload. Because of delays in release of
spacecraft data for analysis, the event was not discovered until
recently.
    Michels said the comet passed through SOLWIND's field of vision as
it streaked toward the sun and quickly disintegrated as it encountered
the blazing solar heat.
    ''We estimate that when the comet hit the sun, the energy released
was about one thousand times the energy used in the U.S. during an
entire year,'' Michels said.
    He said NRL researchers believe the comet may have come from a group
of comets dubbed ''sun-grazers'' whose orbital paths skim close to
the sun. He said about eight sun-grazers have been spotted by ground
observatories in the last 300 years, but that many more may have
escaped detection because of the difficulty of spotting them against
the bright solar background.
    ''For example, the comet detected by SOLWIND was not sighted from
the ground, even though its tail was brighter than Venus,'' Michels
said.
    
ap-ny-10-10 0236EDT
**********
-------

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

Date: 10 October 1981 05:59-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Energy & SPS
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Sigh.  (1) ) Military systems are not necessarily intended to be
useful after a war starts.  Detection and warning are useful
functions. ANYTHING in space is vulnerable to a sophisticated
attack. So is anything on the ground.

(2) In space you have only radiation, but you have an infinite
radiation reservoir that is effectively VERY cold. It takes
clever design to make use of it, but it can be done.

(3) OF COURSE SPS is risky, and few that I know advocate a full
program to build it.  However, SPS remains  a refutation to the
doomsters; it may be expensive, but it pretty well has to work;
and what's expensive?  It would cost considerably less than is
spent on booze.  If the alternative is the collapse of
civilization as claimed by MIT's Forester models and the Meadows
reports based on those models, then SPS is a fairly low-risk
low-cost system (given the alternative).
	But in fact SPS advocates want about $30 million
(million, not billion_) to study the concept and develp needed
technologies;  most sps technologies will be useful in just
about all phases of space activity.
	(4) Arthur Clarke called me today from Sri Lanka. To the
point is his dictum of a long time ago.  "If mankind is to
survive, then, except for a very brief moment in our history,
the word 'ship' will mean  'space ship.'"

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

Date: 10 October 1981 06:29-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Bussard ramjet speed limit
To: decvax!utzoo!henry at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Quite a number of things turn out to be less simple and a bit
harder than we thought.  Still, we have to try.

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

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

11-Oct-81  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #11
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 11

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #10
		      A hot time at L-5 tonight??  
	    Bussard Ramjet designs that exceed the speed limit
			    A number of points
		       Long flame on SPS and fusion
			      Budget cutting
			SPS capital intensiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 1981 1304-EDT
From: Bob Kristoff <KRISTOFF at CMU-20C>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #10
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 10-Oct-81 0702-EDT


What is SPS (please)

Bob Kristoff

-------

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

Date: 10 Oct 1981 1502-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: A hot time at L-5 tonight??  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I read somewhere of a scheme to lose waste heat in space without
dumping massive quantities of material (hot oxygen, for example).
The idea was to use the heat to warm up a reserve of powder, obtained
from the Moon.  You then pump this powder in a stream across a strech
of open space, catching it on the other side and recovering the material
but not the heat.  Since the individual particles can radiate fairly
quickly, if you design the stream and catcher properly, you should
be able to lose quite a bit of heat, but not too much powder.

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

Date: 10 Oct 1981 1352-EDT
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: Bussard Ramjet designs that exceed the speed limit
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: king at RUTGERS

	The limits on the speed of a Bussard ramjet assume that the
kinetic energy (in the ship's reference frame) of the Hydrogen cannot
be recovered.  This might be accomplished, as was mentioned before, by
extracting energy from the stream electromagnetically.  The obvious
way of doing this is to give the ship a strong positive charge.

	Another way of solving this problem is to not slow the plasma
down so much.  It seems to me that it might be possible to have a
long, thin reaction volume.  The plasma would enter the leading end of
this volume, compressed by the ship's fields and slowed only modestly;
it would then react within a long, thin cylinder surrounding the ship
(the reaction volume would be a magnetic field in any reasonably
ramship, anyway; having the reaction take place outside the ship does
not introduce any additional constraint) and the heated, expanding gas
would push against the trailing portion of the ship's field and would
(in the ship's frame) gain its initial velocity and more.  This is
satisfactory for a Bussard ramscoop and (possibly) not for an
Earth-atmosphere ramjet because the reaction "vessel" in the former
case would be non-material and there would be no viscous energy loss.
Besides, I seem to remember that Nasa wanted to build a hypersonic
ramjet once, without slowing the air much, and they expected it to
work.

	The main reason the reaction has to happen fast is that


(1) reaction time <= reaction "chaimber" capacity * plasma encounter rate


	If the chaimber is larger than the ship and can be made even
larger as the ship speeds up, perhaps the reaction could happen at a
more modest rate.

	While any given ship's coils (or supply of monopoles or
whatever) would give THAT ship a fixed speed limit, given any speed
limit we could provide a design for a ship that could meet that limit.

	Another point that should be noted is that, even if we stop
the fuel in the ship's reference frame, and convert the fuel's kinetic
energy into "useless" heat, this heat would be far from useless.
Exhaust velocities of .17c are based on the temperature that can be
reached by a fusion reaction assuming that the fuel starts at "room
temperature" (e. g. 10e8 Kelvin).  If the fusion reaction is thought
of as adding a certain amount of energy to each particle, then it
would set the particles going at .17c for room temperature hydrogen.
If the hydrogen enters the reaction with the particles moving at .17c,
they would come to be moving at .23c (.17*sqrt(2)), which yields an
exhaust velocity of .23c.  This results in net thrust, although less
than a ramship just starting out (.001c) would get.  Eventually a
temperature would be reached at which the fusion reaction doesn't
proceed, but I imagine that that's a high temperature indeed.  (Any
reaction's equilibrium point shifts tords the endothermic direction as
the temperature rises.)
	To put it differently, the thermal efficiency of the rocket
would be nearly perfect because of the high hot temperature, so most
of the kinetic energy that gets converted to heat will be recovered.

-------

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

Date: 10 Oct 1981 1443-PDT
Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL
Subject: A number of points
From:  William "Chops" Westfield <BillW@SRI-KL>
To: space-enthusiast at MC
Cc: billw
Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]10-Oct-81 14:43:14.BILLW>
Redistributed-To: space-enthusiasts at MC
Redistributed-By: BILLW at SRI-KL
Redistributed-Date: 10 Oct 1981

Excuse my possibly igorant rambling, but:

1) Budget cuts
The budget has to be cut.  I may not agree with exactyl what and where
Reagen is cutting the budget, but at least he is doing SOMETHING.
Why isnt NASA receiving funding from private industry, if space is
going to be so profitable ?

2) Capital intensivity.
I suspect that if we don't, it is the Japenese that will, as they have
show in the past that they are willing to make big investments in things
that arent likely to pay off for a LONG time.  Russia, et al, is probably
as bad as we are in that respect.

3) Sun shriking ?
I heard on the radio that the sun is currently shrinking at a rate of
about 5 miles per year.  This ties in with a comment someone made a
LONG time ago about neutrino experiments indicating that the sun was
"off" at the moment.  Any comments ?

BillW

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

Date: 10 Oct 1981 19:04:07-PDT
From: E.jeffc at Berkeley
To: v:space@mit-mc
Subject: Long flame on SPS and fusion

     I would like to apologize in advance for what has
turned out to be a long flame on SPS, with more than a lit-
tle philosophy mixed in.  Why philosophy?  Because there
lies my principle objections against the SPS.  REM correctly
pointed out that I had forgotten how the SPS worked, but my
mistaken notion of how the SPS worked was not the sole rea-
son why I'm against it.  I shall offer a two-pronged attack
on the SPS - one material and the other philosophical.

     Before I start with the flame proper, I feel a need to
justify attacking the SPS on philosophical grounds.  It
seems absurd to me that I must do so, but such is the world
today.  The world has come to believe that the machine, and
more recently the computer, is a valid metaphor for describ-
ing how people work.  This is pure nonsense, as man created
the machine, and surely the creator is something more than
the created!  And yet the world today goes ahead and makes
its most important decisions as if it were nothing more than
a giant machine or computer.  The seemingly inescapable des-
truction the world is heading towards is the price we are
paying for such beliefs, for machine logic is capable only
of reacting to its entropy-plagued environment, instead of
rectifying the situation through creative thought, as a
human being would do.

     Space represents more to me than military superiority,
profits beyond end, or a chance to move heavy industry off
this planet and into space.  These are reasons that a com-
puter might use, to justify the expense of going into space.
To a human being they can be but secondary concerns.  The
reason why we must go into space is the same reason why this
country of ours grew from sea to shining sea: it is the des-
tiny of man to rule over nature.  If that seems no longer
possible, it is only because we have abdicated that which
made it possible, in favor of cold machine logic.  No doubt
this sounds corny, and that is why the world is in such a
mess; it most certainly would \not/ have been corny a cen-
tury ago, when manifest destiny ruled the hearts and minds
of this land.

     Now on to the philosophical attack against the SPS:
the philosophy behind the SPS is morally bankrupt.  The SPS
would have us live off the table scraps of the Universe,
like some parasite, instead of feasting on the meal itself -
fusion power.  The SPS is in accord with the philosophy of
living in harmony with nature, as the SPS would have us take
only that which nature, of her own free will, provides.
Whether you run to the hills to commune with nature, or go
into space with the latest technology to commune with her,
the philosophy is the same.  A snail darter may have to live
in harmony in nature - it does not have a choice - but man
does not have to, as he can \control/ nature.  No one has
ever reached his full potential by living off that which is
freely provided him, and it is for this reason man must con-
trol nature, and not to live in "harmony" with it.

     Unfortunately, many readers would not consider a philo-
sophical attack a valid one, either out of principle, or
because they hold opposing philosophical views.  And so I
will come back down to Earth, or at least low Earth orbit,
and try once again to give practical reasons as to why the
SPS is not feasible in the near future.

     We do not have the resources to build a SPS.  It's that
simple.  Someone remarked that if all the money spent on
booze in one year were to be spent on a SPS, we could afford
to build one.  That's misleading.  The fallacy of that
remark is that it assumes that the \amount/ of money spent
is more important than \what/ it is spent on.  If the
President were to go on television, and beg that all
citizens donate their booze money for one year to the cause
of building an SPS, and if by some miracle the people actu-
ally did it, and if the money were to be spent on the con-
struction of a SPS, what would the result be?  Aside from a
devastated booze industry, the result would be massive
hyperinflation and no SPS.  Why?  Because there isn't enough
industrial capacity in this country to handle both the nor-
mal demands of the economy (which it can't handle even now)
AND the demands of building a SPS.  The SPS is too capital
intensive!  Before one can be built, our economy has to be
revitalized and greatly expanded - but to do so will require
the removal of some of the bottlenecks restraining it, such
as high interest rates and expensive energy.  Fusion power
can be developed and put into commercial use long before the
first SPS could possibly be built, assuming that it can be
built without straining the economy past its breaking point.
Fusion is not that far away.  Congress last year passed the
Magnetic Fusion Energy Act of 1980, 100 to 0 in the Senate,
and only 7 Nay's in the House.  It mandates a commercial
fusion power plant before the year 2000, and an experimental
one before 1990.  It authorizes half a billion dollars a
year to be spent on fusion research, to be adjusted anually
to account for inflation.  David Stockman has not been able
to seriously cut funding, although he has tried to remove
all funding, undoubtably because Congress approved it so
strongly.  With fusion power as an integral part of our
economy, we would have the resources to build a SPS, but
by then, we wouldn't need to!

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

Date: 10 October 1981 22:37-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Budget cutting
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Turning off the Voyager before it completes its misson would be CRETINOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everybody who hasn't done so yet, write to V.P. Bush, as mentionned previously.
<Personal request>

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

Date: 10 Oct 1981 23:07:59-PDT
From: ihnss!mhtsa!harpo!chico!esquire!ima!yale-co!galloway at Berkeley
To: ima!esquire!chico!harpo!mhtsa!ihnss!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
--------
Subject:  SPS capital intensiveness

Say WHAT?!  Hate to tell you this, but oil is not a renewable resource, at 
least not in the foreseeable future.  There are problems with SPS, but i don't
think bringing interest rates down is going to help the energy crisis.  Getting
renewable sources of energy will

Tom Galloway @ Yale






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

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

12-Oct-81  0404	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #12   
Date: 12 Oct 1981 0403-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #12
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 12

Today's Topics:
			      A Glossary   
			   SPACE Digest V2 #11
			  Rebuttal to SPS flame
			     What about NASA
			Rebuttal to E.jeffc on SPS
			      SPS and Fusion
		      A hot time at L-5 tonight??  
		       Long flame on SPS and fusion
			 Costs of SPS vs. fusion
			      Finite energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1981 1644-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
Subject: A Glossary   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I was quite surprised to see the message from Bob Kristoff asking what
SPS stood for.  I guess I should know better than to assume everyone
knows the Jargon.  To help remedy this problem which I suspect is far
from exceptional, I will put together a Glossary/Index to help new
people on the list get up to speed.  To get me started, I would appreciate
it if anyone on the list who has been confused about the terminology send
me (OTA@SAIL) a message listing the stuff you are/were confused about.
I will send out another message anouncing the glossary's existance when
it does.
	Ted Anderson

PS.  I would also like to commend the readership for not flooding the
general distribution list with dozens of nearly identical replys to this
question.  There has been quite enough traffic on this lists as it is.

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

Date: 11 October 1981 09:23-EDT
From: Steve Kudlak <FFM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  SPACE Digest V2 #11
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Why doesn't NASA get private funding if it's going to be so popular?  Because
private industry will not fund long-range projects even if they are near-
certainties.  Our executives who make these decisions are paid primarily on
the bonus system, which means they are paid according to how well the profit
picture looks this year, not ten, twenty, or thirty years from now.  They 
therefore try to maximize short-term profits, sometimes at the expense of long-
term ones.  Corporate presidents may not even be alive that far in the future, 
and they almost certainly won't work for the same firm.  Chief executives 
change companies at an ever increasing rate, and it's quite high already. 
Thus they may not want to spend their short time in power making things come
out well for those who will succeed them.  Witness all the old machines in our
factories.  
  The other factor is that space may never profit existing companies.  It may
only profit socialised nations (who can afford to put up the capital) or only
new companies sprung into existence specifically to work in space.  No one 
knows what form the government will take in space, who will govern, how the 
profits will be distributed, etc., and few companies want to risk that by
funding "pie-in-the-sky" research today.  In the discovery of the new world,
remember, Columbus had to get funding from Queen Isabella because no one could
risk their hard-earned cash for such a wild proposal.  And for the first few
years it looked like they were right--all they got for quite a few years were
reports of failed colonies, sickness, freezing winters, starvation, etc.  And
existing firms never did make the bulk of the profit off the New World, new
companies and governments did instead.  Yet I doubt that the world--even just
Europe--would have been better off if the New World had never been developed.
  Incidently, can you name any project one could expect to take more than about
20 years to complete which has EVER been funded privately?  (I don't mean ones 
of the variety which were projected to take 5 years and came in behind-time, 
but ones which were originally expected to take that long.)  If not, how can 
you expect them to start now, with such high interest rates, economic hard 
times, and threats from the U.N. about making space "the common heritage of 
mankind"?

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

Date: 11 October 1981 11:16-EDT
From: Steve Kudlak <FFM at MIT-MC>
Subject:   Rebuttal to SPS flame
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

  I support building the SPS, for two reasons:  Philisophical and practical.
I know philisophical arguments can (and frequently do!) go on forever, but
I should present at least one alternative view to the "scraps-of-the-universe"
theory.  
  The use of machines (currently semiconducting computers, since that is the
smartest machine we have to work with at the moment) as metaphores for human
thought goes way back.  This does NOT suggest that machines are BETTER than 
men.  All it means is that people always look for analogies, models, and 
simplifications of many things, their own behavior included.  Even our
best AI programs are incapable of drawing analogies in any real way (and I
am beginning to think that's what the biggest difficulty will be in making
an "intelligent" machine).  Anyway, the very idea that computers could come
up with solutions to such complicated questions involving morality, ethics, 
philosiphy, and, further, that those solutions would be somehow different from
those a human being might give, reminds me of the "golden age" of pulp science
fiction (little green priestesses worshipping a computer, which makes all
their decisions and tries to scare off intruders--who promptly pull the plug
on this "evil", "dehumanizing" machine!  Such stories may have done more to 
discourage home computers than all IBM horror stories combined.)
  Philisophically, I don't see why one source of power isn't as good as
another, given that they are both clean and sufficient for our needs.  If we 
can meet our needs by a souce of energy that doesn't require large amounts
of waste, why not do it?  We have more than enough energy coming our way
now; why not use it instead of constructing wasteful, enefficient generators
using up water (or some other source of hydrogen) for something we already
have?  The first commandment of the universe is Thou Shalt Not Waste, but it
is not as limiting as it may sound:  It does not mean "limit your growth to 
Earth," nor "Make do with less," nor even "Stop expanding."  It DOES mean
that when you have two ways of achieving some end you should use the one that
requires the least impact on the rest of the universe.  Earth's is the only 
biosphere we've got, let's not further destroy it by generating our power there
and polluting it (while fusion is better this way than other sources, it isn't
perfect--in thermal pollution, for example) when we can do just as well (if not
better--lower maintenance, less down-time) with solar power satellites?
  I don't see any difference between using fusion power generated at a safe
distance (about 93 million miles) and recollected than using power generated
here except that we will have to contain it here, dispose of the radioactive
peices (The housing and containment machines will cause some radiation, 
although not any directly from the fusion reaction--a tiny fraction of that
from fission reactions) here, get the hydrogen from here (electrolyzing it from
water is an incredible inefficient process--even after the water is purified,
not easy on a huge scale anyway), and risk terrorist attacks here (a generating
station is a prime target anyway, but with plasma that hot in it a well-placed 
bomb could kill many people more than a standard (hydroelectric, say) plant).
  I have seen nothing to indicate that large-scale building of fusion plants
would be cheaper than SPSs.  Granted, my information on fusion is about a year
behind the latest, but I think I would have heard any very major developments
(e.g. reaching engineering viability).  SPSs suffer most now from lack of any
research funds (due to its image as a wild project).  Fusion has been heavily
researched for decades (always "just around the corner," too), and has been 
given the sanction of government and industry, while SPSs sat in a corner, 
researched only by crazy graduate students and their crazy professors.  Only
very recently has the idea been popular enough to admit belief in public,
let alone endorse; yet it is gaining popularity now.
  Certainly SPSs are a high capital project, but so is any proposal big
enough to allow near-total energy independence.  The argument that we should go
all-out to build fusion plants doesn't hold water if you then argue that we 
should not go all-out to build SPSs because the economy can't stand it.  I 
think the economy can support such a large industrial effort, and will benifit
more from SPS development than from fusion development.  The opening of space 
will mean all sorts of new products which can be produced only in zero gravity,
similar to the wealth of new products arising from the invention of the vacuum
pump.  This is even aside from the spinoffs that happen constantly already from
space research, now ranging from 3 or 4 to 10 times (depending on whether you 
ask a program fan or foe) that which is invested in it.  And most of it is 
unclassified, unlike fusion with its military applications.  The economy is 
suffering not from a lack of industrial resources--steel mills and such--but
from a lack of the demand for them.  That's why existing mills are closing, why
high unemployment rates, the decline of the industrial sector.  Reagan may be
doing the right thing in cutting the budget, but he is most decidedly doing
the wrong things in cutting taxes before spending is firmly reduced, increasing
defense at the greatest rate since Vietnam (and that was in wartime!), and
cutting research money for research and education.  We need the education and
research for making better new products and cheaper ways of doing things, we 
do not need research into weapons which will become classified and unusable by
the private sector anyway; nor do we need government to risk not balancing the
budget by so drastically cutting taxes.
  We should go onward and upward, and the way there is not by way of backward
and downward, but up into space.

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

Date: 11 Oct 1981 (Sunday) 1214-EDT
From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus)
Subject: What about NASA
To:   space at MIT-MC

Might I humbly ask the following:  Why does'nt NASA stay out of space and
allow private industry to go-after space?

 o  NASA allows more government control at the very begining of our space
    program and will always have a purpose in future space exploration.

 o  The purpose of NASA is now becoming outdated.  I liken it somewhat to
    the instantiation of the ARPA net by ARPA, and now we see many commercial
    networks upspringing.

 o  The future should look something like this:
    DoD and military space missions will be handled separately, probably
    a little bit of NASA helping (tracking/technical people . . .)

    Strictly commercial flights/missions will be handled mostly by 
    private companies ready to jump in; ROCKWELL intn'l, Boeing Corp,
    TRW and perhaps MD. NASA will be a government AGENCY handling
    cross coordination, paperwork and 'slot' space.  Research experiments
    in the future I have a feeling will piggyback Dod/military or fly
    inside commercial subsystems.

The point I contend is that NASA will never go away, they will be playing
 a useful and basic role in the entire 'game'.

Henry Dreifus

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

Date: 11 October 1981 12:38-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-AI>
To: MINSKY at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC, E.jeffc at UCB-C70
Subject: Rebuttal to E.jeffc on SPS

:mail E.jeffc@Berkeley, minsky, space@mit-mc

Your arguments are weak:
	This is pure nonsense, as man created the machine, and surely
	the creator is something more than the created!
Why "surely"?  That's a good way to prove a man can shovel more than 
a bulldozer!

	To a human being they can be but secondary concerns.  The
	reason why we must go into space is the same reason why this
	country of ours grew from sea to shining sea: it is the des-
	tiny of man to rule over nature.

The destiny of man, if anything, is the destiny of intelligence --
perhaps to rule but perhaps more to know.

	The SPS would have us live off the table scraps of the
	Universe, like some parasite, instead of feasting on the meal
	itself - fusion power.

SPS IS fusion power, an energy collector near a fusion reactor called the
sun.  It would be nice to have small, local fusion reactors, but they appear
to be at least many years away, with no good reason to think that they
can be made to produce power as cheaply as SPS.  See below.

	We do not have the resources to build a SPS. --- The SPS is too
	capital intensive! --- Fusion power can be developed and put
	into commercial use long before the first SPS could possibly
	be built, assuming that it can be built without straining the
	economy past its breaking point.

Fusion power is a mere gamble, as noted above.  We simply don't know how to
build a fusion reactor yet, so we can't know how much it will cost!

As for SPS costs, the design will change over the next years -- if the
subject is studied.  I believe that the launch costs will be trivial,
once the earthmen let themselves study the feasibility of launching
heavy loads into space using ballistic nuclear launch methods, from
deep holes in the ground.  (Lunar materials, also proposed for this,
would take longer to develop, I think, but perhaps worth it for
exploration technology reasons.)  So, the "capital costs" of such
projects have been overestimated because of assuming that the stuff be
launched by chemical (!) rockets.
 

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

Date: 11 Oct 1981 2231-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: SPS and Fusion
To:   space at MIT-MC
CC:   e.jeffc at UCB-C70 


(Actually, this discussion might be more appropiate to ENERGY)

I found your message interesting.  You correctly point out that throwing
money at SPS will not, in itself, create SPSs (although money is a
perrequsite for such construction).  But you then go and ruin your point
by essentially saying that if we threw enough money at fusion then we
would have power plants by the year 2000 (afterall, Congress just mandated 
that we do so).

I pride myself a bit on an understanding of the current state of physics 
research, and I was lead to believe that they is no fundamental scientific
reason to believe that it is POSSIBLE to use fusion as a power plant
resource.  Am I wrong on this?  And if so, can you cite any recent
experimental results on this matter?  I would like to believe fusion
is practical, but need some facts.

SPS IS practical, in the sense that only engineering and economics,
not fundamental scientific principles, seen to hinder us.  In a
technical sense I believe SPS could be a reality FAR earlier than fusion.
The engineering challenges would seem to be greater, as are the
economic challenges, but I do not believe this is clear either.  All
the proposals for fusion reactors I have seen (all assuming the
critical densities could be obtained under existing experimental
reactor designs) are EXTREMELY capital intensive, and it appears
that far less hard engineering studies have been done on the design of
fusion reactors than on SPS (once again, since we are not sure what a
fusion reactor will look like, while we pretty much know what a
SPS will look like if we can build it).

Does anyone have harder facts on this matter?  I would like to have
reasonable fusion power plants, but they seem to me to be more
unlikely than SPS is, given our current science and technology.
And unless we know HOW to build them, disscussions of economics seem
a little bit pointless.

Jim

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

Date: 12 October 1981 04:19-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: A hot time at L-5 tonight??  
To: TAW at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The paper was in the third conference on radiation in space,
held at Ames a year or so ago. I thnk I summarized it in a
column once.

If you pitch and catch in the right geometry the total force
changin the orbit of the system is nil.  Pretty nifty.

The concept of using hot ddust streeams as radiators is just one
ofthe possibilities studied.

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

Date: 12 October 1981 04:36-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Long flame on SPS and fusion
To: E.jeffc at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I confess I have not read all your flame.  The reason is that
you have put forth an assumption at the beginning that is
certainly open to challenge.

Why is SPS and solar energy the "table scraps" while fusion is
the meal itself?  I grant you that fusion is useful (if we get it
working;); but it is not the end of all.  Fusion does produce
radioactive wastes.  Not as many as fission, and the fission
waste problem is a non-problem, technically, although hardly
that politically.
	There are other disadvatntages to fusion.  it's big, and
may not at all be what you want in orbit.
	SPS as as power source for Earth may never happen.  It
is a string to our bow; a means of powering a civilization
although we've been told that there is no such source of power.
But for space itself, SPS seems to be a fairly good way to get
the power needed.
	At any rate, most SPS enthusiasts have asked for no more
than $30 million a year -- about what Health and Human Services
spends in five minutes -- for technology development studies.
The technology would be useful in almost ANY space exploitation.

As to your defense of the right to make a philosophical
attack, none was needed; I presume many of us would like to
believe that we are part of something larger than any one of us,
and that there are things which are, plainly speaking, worth
while.

I'll try to read the rest of your piece later.  I regret the
typos in my above; I get absolutely no feedback from the net,
the TIP I must use lately seems to play through a VERY noisy
line.  sigh.

[I confess, there were so many typos, I went through and corrected
most of them.  I occasionally do this to mail.  I hope no one
objects. -ota]

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

Date: 12 October 1981 04:43-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Costs of SPS vs. fusion
To: CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Given lunar bases, it's conceivable that SPS would be "free" in
the sense that almost nothing need go from Earth to anywhere.
Use of lunar resources through lunar colonists produces NEW
wealth, not redistribution of something already around.  It
takes a bit of capital to get that going, but not all that much
(trivial compared to, say, the liquor budget); and the result is
pretty impressive.

Fusion can be good stuff, but the capital costs won't be cheap,
and I will bet large sums that the anti-nuke crowd will NOT
allow fusion plants to be built economically.  After all, they
claim that fission is not economic (and given their actions, it
ain't)...

Stalin once said that there was no subway in the world except
that in Moscow.  He had been to Paris.  Hannah Arendt
interptreted it to mean that the totalitarian believes that
given the power, he can make any statement true by putting
anything contradictory down the memory hole...

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

Date: 12 October 1981 04:53-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Finite energy
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, E.jeffc at UCB-C70

SPS can be used to power space ships.  One uses a laser to beam
energy to the ship.  The ship now uses any one of several high
ISP drive concepts; it need not carry th epower source along,
and thus can get much better thrust/weight ratios.
	The laser power shipis probably the way we will
explore/mine asteroids.  The more one looks at it the better it
looks.  It can also be used to aid light-sail vessels.

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

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

13-Oct-81  0404	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #13   
Date: 13 Oct 1981 0403-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #13

To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 13

Today's Topics:
			     space heat sinks
	       Budget cutting - yer message regarding same
			      SPS continued
			  SPS vs. Nuclear Power
			       SPS & Fusion
			   Hot stuff on Saturn?
			       Budget Cuts
			       SPS Flamage
			   SPACE Digest V2 #10
			  Possibility of fusion
 Long flame on SPS and fusion / Reason for space, beyond profit&military
		       Long flame on SPS and fusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 1981 0911-EDT
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: space heat sinks
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: king at RUTGERS

	At one time I was thinking about the idea of using a thrown
stream of powder as a heat sink.  I observed that the powder has to
fly through a vacuum.  Since I find it difficult to imagine a method
whereby the powder could go back and forth between vacuum and fluid, I
suspect that it would have to spend its entire circuit in vacuum.
This means several things:

	1) A solid would have to be chosen that was very resistant to
vacuum cementing.

	2) Some way has to be found to pump a powder.  In industrial
applications, this is a real pain.  Nobody is considering coal-powder
pipelines, for example, even though the water usage is a major
objection to coal-slurry pipelines.  Sawdust is pelletized at
considerable expense before it is used in a burner, in part because it
will not flow through a hopper.  The problems are worse in a vacuum
and weightlessness, because any pump that proposes to work by having
the powder enter some chamber from which it is later ejected will find
that the powder will not enter the chamber on its own accord.  It has
to be pushed into the chamber, and I suspect that powder, in vacuum,
in weightlessness, under pressure, is truly wicked stuff.

	3) How do we heat the powder?  Powder of any sort is a fine
insulator, and with vacuum between the particles I suspect it's even
better.  I suspect that we will find that the area inside our heat
exchanger has to be equal to the area that would have been necessary
if we had had a solid heat exchanger in the first place, because each
unit of area can only radiate (conduction and convection very minor)
as much heat into a powder "touching" its surface as it could have
into space.  While there is some conduction into the heat exchanger's
powder, there would be a lot less radiation because the powder would
not be at 2.3 degrees Kelvin, the effective temperature of space away
from the Sun.

	I therefore propose that the powder be replaced by a liquid.
This liquid would have to have an extremely low vapor presure, but
there are a number of liquids already designed for vacuum use.  Think
of a large object the shape of an opened tuna fish can with a little
bit of the top left as a lip around the edge.  If this rotates around
its axis, any liquid will collect on the inside of the curved side.
If we put a pump on the inside of the side, and connect the pump
through a rotary joint in the "bottom" to the rest of the system, we
can pump the liquid through the heat exchanger.  The heated liquid
then goes through a showerhead, through space, and is aimed at the
bottom of the tuna can.  Centrifugal force brings it back to the pump.
-------

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

Date: 12 October 1981 12:36-EDT
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Budget cutting - yer message regarding same
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

This short flame in response to many complaints  regarding budget cuts
on NASA and space-related science:

Go learn  Japanese,  Russian,  French,  German and some other European 
languages, probably in that order.  Then you can get together with the
people who MIGHT do the right  thing by space  development.  After all,
they can copy our  technology all they want until they surpass us, and 
sidestep the most obvious pitfalls simply by watching us dismantle our 
own selves.  That also goes for energy resource development - like SPS.

As (I think) Jerry Pournelle once said, space exploitation is going to 
happen whether the developers speak English, Russian, Swahili ....  In
this field as in most others, I think we have lost our perspective and
sold our birthright to the military and the knee-jerk budget-cutters.
I also think that people tend to get the government  they deserve, and
the American national mood is too concerned with fighting for a bigger 
piece of the smaller pie to see beyond its own nose.  Hence I  believe
our slide down from scientific and technical leadership isn't about to
stop, rather to accelerate.

So I have tried to cauterize my emotions toward our space program (and
general scientific establishment), and hope that others will learn from 
our mistakes.  Too bad - it looked pretty hopeful some years ago.

Gloomily yours,
Oded

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

Date: 11 Oct 1981 18:14:38-PDT
From: CSVAX.tuttle at Berkeley
To: minsky@mit-ai, CSVAX.space@Berkeley
Subject: SPS continued
Cc: e.jeffc@Berkeley

     Due to network problems here in Berkeley, I am forced
to mail this from another machine to avoid excessive delay.
I am really "E.jeffc".

     Can a bulldozer create a man? or even another
bulldozer?  That is what I mean by man being something more
than what he creates.  Yes, a bulldozer can do more work
than a man with a shovel, but it was man who created the
concept of a bulldozer for a purpose - to allow him to do
more work.  That is the sole purpose for the existance of
the bulldozer.  Man does not operate under such constraints.
Anyway, as this is a space digest, I might as well get on
with the main point of this letter.

     I wasn't even considering how the materials for the SPS
got into space, the simple volume of material required is in
itself too capital expensive.  As for the statement that SPS
is fusion power - that's nonsense!  If we could turn the sun
on and off, control its brightness, create a new sun when
the current dies, and all sort of other things, then I might
believe that SPS was nothing more than a part in a fusion
reactor.  That, however, is not the case.  We have abso-
lutely no control over the sun, and therefore the SPS puts
nature in control over us, instead of the other way around.

     Earlier today, I have come up with another very real
problem concerning the SPS.  I have not seen it mentioned
ealier, which shocks me as it makes the SPS unworkable,
unless someone has come up with a solution to it. The prob-
lem is this:  the SPS acts precisely as a solar sail.  As
light is collected by the SPS, it transfers momentum to it.
A solar sail is twice as efficient in this as it reflects
the light instead of absorbing it, and so it gets twice as
much thrust as the SPS would generate.  This thrust would
knock the SPS out of geosynchronous orbit, if not out of
Earth orbit.  I have done some calculations:

     At our distance from the sun, the energy-density of
light is 7.2E+5 ergs per square centimeter.  Assuming a SPS
with a cross-sectional density of 1 gram per square centime-
ter (a very high figure I would presume), the acceleration
that results is 2.4E-5 cm/sec**2.  This is not trivial, as
it amounts to about 2 centimeters per day of velocity.  In
one year, the cumulative displacement will be 1.33 kilome-
ters.  The lighter the structure, the greater this displace-
ment.  Therefore, the less capital intensive the SPS is
made, by using less material, the more unworkable it
becomes!  It will take both mass and energy, especially
energy, to keep the SPS in its desired orbit.  I'm sure that
\someone/ must have thought of this problem, as it's very
obvious.  The surface area of the SPS is not important in
this calculation, as the increase in area is proportional to
both its mass and its energy absorbing capacities.

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

Date: 12 October 1981 05:03-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPS vs. Nuclear Power
To: menlo70!hao!woods at UCB-C70
cc: menlo70!ucbvax!space at UCB-C70

Be fair.  We will not run out of uranium if we go to breeders.
You may say -- I may even agree -- that the breeder is a system
whose time has passed; but it does take care of the uranium
problem for longer than any 200 years.

Second, the nuclear waste problem really is a non-problem.  The
stuff is NOT dangerous for millions and millions of years.
After about 600 years, it is no more radioactive than the ore
that spawned it; and after that the total amount of
radioactivity is actually reduced from what would have happened
if it had never been mined.  (Natural uranium really is
radioactive and all its products including radons and radon
daughters really do get into he system, wehter we mine them or
not.)  Take the wastes, solidify them to glass, and put them in
the Mojave under a concrete superdome; that's not a really good
way to do it, but they are recoverable there, you can guard
them, and they are isolated from the environment.  Put an
armored desert regiment there to protect them (the troops have
to be staioned somewhere...)

Yet for all of it, I agree with your long run conclusion.  We
have to learn to use space and space resources, and space power
systems are really  likely to be more useful over the long haul
than nuclear.  The proliferation control problem and like that
are real (although again be fair; nobody has yet used a power
reactor to make bombs.)  So: go to space and we don't need
nuclear power; which satisfies both of us.

But do be fair.  I concede that there are legitimate concerns
about nuclear power, but one oought to take the trouble to get
the basic story right; physics is physics, and political views
don't seem to change the universe's laws.

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

Date: 12 October 1981 14:35-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-AI>
To: MINSKY at MIT-AI, e.jeffc at UCB-C70, csvax.space at UCB-C70
cc: space at MIT-MC

Hmmm.  You should seek the cure for suspected bugs shortly after
finding them.  If the SPS were to suffer a net orbital retardation
this would indeed be a pain.  But the momentum is opposite in the two
halves of each day, so the net effect is of a very small order.
It could probably be corrected by adjusting the absorbtion on the
boiler for a few minutes per year, but I haven't done the calculation.

As for the relation of tools to their creators, that's a matter of opinion
and you can continue to think one can't make a machine smarter, etc., than
oneself, but there's no known reason to suppose that.  Even if we didn't
know how, we could simulate an evolution -- and perhaps one that
would compress millions of years into tens or ones.

Your argument about who is in control of the sun seems frivolous, re
whether its a source of fusion energy or a "reactor" or whatever.
Like saying that hydroelectric isn't fair because we don't turn rivers
off.

Finally, what calculation says that the SPS materials budget is large
compared to, e.g., the mythical fusion plants?

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

Date: 12 October 1981 04:27-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>

(1) Budget cuts and private enterprise.
    Until there is some guarnatee of access to space, and
security of investment (not surety of payoff, but security
against arbitrary siezure or destruction of investment) it's
going to be hard to find high rollers inteerested in putting 
the money.

Shrinking sun: I guess I was first to circulate that story,
based on the lack of neutrinos found in the homestake Mine
experiment.  The shrink rate sounds VERY much like the rate
calculated to put out what the Sun does indeed put out; or did I
slip a decomal point there?  Worrisome anyway...

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

Date: 12 October 1981 05:18-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>

Nor, by the way, am I any enemy of fusion reseearch; see any of
my published writings.  Nor do I necessarily thnk SPS will
replace or be better than fusion.  But we don't have fusion, and
we don't have SPS; and we are constantly told that the world is
running out of energy.      
    And: we have got to do something about productivity or
the social security system will do more than collapse, it will
fall with a mighty reverberation...

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

Date: 12 Oct 1981 1335-PDT
From: DIETZ at USC-ECL
Subject: SPS & Fusion
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: jpm at SU-AI, pourne at MIT-MC

In fact, fusion HAS been making great gains recently.  Fusion
physicists have just about cracked the problems of instabilities in
plasmas, and are 99% sure that a scaled up tokamak will pass
break-even (on D-T).  They are already building these machines (at
Princeton).  They will generate enough neutrons so that after the
machine is pulsed 10 times you won't be able to service it directly
(too much induced radioactivity).  And there is a possibility that
tokamaks can be made to 'ignite' and fuse without any continuous
energy input (from neutral beams and other heaters), although
physicists disagree on this one.

The big advantage that fusion has, as I see it, is that there are many
more ways to build a fusion reactor than there are to build a fission
reactor (or an SPS).  Some, like tokamaks, almost certainly will work,
but may not be economical.  Others, like inertial confinement, looked
good initially but turned out to be real losers.  And there are
plently of schemes being kicked around today that may lead to small,
easy-to-build power plants (the power companies want a small reactor
that you can build for just a few $100M).  For example: the so called
'plasma focus' idea: the reactor is quite small and has *NO* magnets.
It has just two coaxial electrodes that you send a pulse of 1E5 amps
at 1E6 volts (about) through.  The resulting arcs wrap themselves up
into a knot of plasma where fusion takes place (this mechanism is
similar to what happens in a solar flare, by the way).

The induced radiation in fusion reactors is a problem, especially in
big complicated reactors like tokamaks (the problem exacerbated if
we use neutral beams to heat the plasma - the neutral beam machine
also gets hit by the neutrons).  However, eventually fusion reactors
will use clean fuel cycles like deuterium/helium3 and hydrogen/boron,
which produce no neutrons (the energy comes off in the form of charged
particles).

However, SPS is not pollution free.  Manufacturing a structure as big
as an SPS will almost certainly result in large numbers of small
particles being released in earth orbit.  When one of these particles
hits a sattelite at high speed, more particles are produced.  The
particles stay in orbit for years, until light pressure and air drag
pull them down.  An SPS would present such a large target area that
the particles would multiply rapidly.  This same argument can be used
against space industry (at least the heavy kind).  Note that this is
*not* a hypothetical problem - already plans are on the boards for
armoring sattelites (and not just military ones).

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

Date: 12 October 1981 1630-EDT (Monday)
From: David.Anderson at CMU-10A
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Hot stuff on Saturn?
Message-Id: <12Oct81 163035 DA80@CMU-10A>

Has anyone seen more information on what sounds like a fascinating
discovery by Voyager about Saturn?

a002  2122  09 Oct 81
PM-News Digest,

      AP PMs News Digest
      Saturday, Oct. 10, 1981

    SATURN SURPRISE: Hottest Story Yet On Voyager II

    BALTIMORE - The hottest show in the solar system is nowhere near the
sun, a researcher says, outlining still another big surprise from
Saturn based on data brought in by the mechanical sight and touch of
Voyager II. The ringed planet has a region that is 100,000 times
hotter than the surface of the sun. Slug PM-Hot Zone, new material,
490 words, should stand.

ap-ny-10-10 0006EDT
**********

--dave

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

Date: 12 October, 1958 EDT
From: Adam Buchsbaum  <research!sjb at berkeley>
Subject: Budget Cuts

As I see it, we have three choices:

1)  We can spend money searching for intelligent life in
    outer space, a very nice prospect, especially if we
    find some.  We can't be the only ones ``out there''!

2)  We can spend money searching for intelligent life in
    Washington, which will probably take up more funds
    than SETI to be successful!

3)  We can put even more money into building weapons.  Of
    course, we do have to be able to destroy the world more
    times than the Russians!

If you look at those three, I think you might find number 1
to be the most pleasing.

Adam Buchsbaum

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

Date:  13 October 1981 01:55 edt
From:  Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  SPS Flamage
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 12 October 1981 07:03 edt from Ted Anderson

Somebody (names scroll by fast, folks) made the dogmatic statement that SPS
was a lot safer than fusion.  Once upon a time, there were popular horror
stories about SPS beams frying passing birds; out-of-whack SPS transmitters
spraying microwaves far afield from their targets, etc.  (Interestingly
enough, we all remember the "sticky" Voyager camera mount that failed to
respond to ground command and pointed in the wrong direction for several days.
Would You Buy A Projector Mount from These Folks?)

I'm no expert; I have no axe to grind.  Can somebody comment on these horror
stories and tell me why I shouldn't be worried about flakeouts in a satellite
beaming a power source that can stop invalids' pacemakers under the BEST of
operating conditions?

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

From: DLW@MIT-AI
Date: 10/13/81 04:08:02
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #10

DLW@MIT-AI 10/13/81 04:08:02 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #10
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
CC: RWG at MIT-AI
In reply to the recent letter about problems with nuclear power:

(1) Some anti-nuclear people (like you) have what you consider just reasons
for discouraging use of nuclear power, but many anti-nuclear people are, in
fact, radical, and, sadly, some are even lunatics.  Indeed, not all people
opposed to nuclear power should be so labelled--far from it--but don't lose
sight of the fact that the anti-nuclear "movement" is currently extremely
marginal, being populated by at least as many fear brokers and tear
jerkers as legitamate critics, and it is guilty of spreading a great deal
of misinformation.

(2) What happens when the uranium runs out in 200 years?  By then, our
strenuous research activities (I hope) into solar, fusion, geothermal,
and other promising energy sources will have matured into functioning
and cheap supplies of energy.  Until then, the world needs all the energy
it can get, and fission reactors must be part of the interim solution.

(3) Indeed, it has not been "shown" that there will not be any major
accidents.  It has also not been "shown" that passenger airplanes will
never crash.  Sometimes they do.  I take them anyway.  I feel that even
though there are occasional accidents, the level of risk is quite acceptable
in exchange for the benefit that I get.  In fact, I take my life in my
hands every day when I drive my car, an activity that I consider relatively
dangerous.  Nuclear power is so safe that I don't feel any worry about the
danger of accidents at all.  Now, it took me a lot of reading and study to
come to this conclusion, and I cannot possibly try to reproduce all of the
arguments supporting my claim.  However, the easiest way to make the point
is as follows.  If you look into the mechanisms behind nuclear reactors and
their failure modes, you will find something that is not surprising:
accidents come in a whole range of sizes, and the ones that cause no harm
are much more common than the ones that cause harm; the ones that kill a
few people are much more common than the ones that kill many people, which
are much more common than the real major disasters that many of the
anti-nuke folk spend so much time discussing.  How many of the "a few
people were killed" kind of accidents can you think of?  In "the
greatest nuclear disaster of all time", at Three Mile Island, how
many casualties to you recall?

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

From: DLW@MIT-AI
Date: 10/13/81 04:23:47
Subject: Possibility of fusion

DLW@MIT-AI 10/13/81 04:23:47 Re: Possibility of fusion
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Huh?  You say you have heard no scientific evidence that it is POSSIBLE to
use fusion as a power source in power plants?  Whatever does that mean?
What wopuld it mean for there to be evidence that it is "possible"?  Surely
fusion reactions release a great deal of energy; surely we can create
fusion reactions in our backyard (Nevada, anyway); surely it is CONCIEVABLE
that we might be able to control them and tap their energy; many different
plans for doing so exist and a whole lot of physicists are working hard on
them and have given them a lot of thought; do you seriously demand that
more evidence is needed that it might be "possible"?  It seems clear at
this point that it is a question of engineering and cost effectiveness, and
that the "possibility" has been made clear.

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

Date: 13 October 1981 04:34-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Long flame on SPS and fusion / Reason for space, beyond profit&military
To: E.jeffc at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I too want to get into space both to survive forever (with 99% of our
population in space, a nuclear war on Earth will be a pinprick in
the body-human), and to dominate the universe (explore the Milky-Way,
then the whole Virgo supercluster), controlling vast resources for
our pleasure (build a computer capable of playing a perfect game of Go,
catalog all other lifeforms in space, find out for sure if the heat-death
will get us like current theories predict).
But we can't do that yet, we can't even establish a colony for
1000 people in space.  We have to bootstrap ourselves to that state.
As I see it, we have to establish a permanent manned space station
in low earth orbit, then we have to develop industry in space for
manufacturing space-colony stuff, and then we need to build a
space colony and a solar power station to supply it with energy.
Finally when that is all done, we can send those 1000 people to space.
The way the budget-slashing is going this year, we'll be lucky if
we get even the first step done before 1990.

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

Date: 13 October 1981 04:56-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Long flame on SPS and fusion
To: E.jeffc at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

If the President went on TV and asked us to donate booze or pizza
money to building an SPS out of Earth materials using the shuttle
for putting it all up there, he'd be a fool.
But if he asked us to donate that money for building a low-earth-orbit
station and for surveying the moon and asteroids and comets using
unmanned vehicles, and if a couple years hence all that was accomplished
and he asked us to donate next years booze or pizza money for building
a remote-controlled moonrock-processing station and for sending up
manufacturing equipment for converting those materials into large
space stations and factories in space, maybe he'd be on the right track.

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

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

14-Oct-81  0403	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #14   
Date: 14 Oct 1981 0402-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #14
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 14

Today's Topics:
				character
			       booze money
		 Drawbacks of SPS, hazards of fission use
		Enigmatic letter from NASA and budget cuts
			  subduing Mother Nature
			     Bigotry in Space
			       booze money
			     space heat sinks
			       SPS Flamage
	   Budget cutting - yer message regarding same; an idea
			      SPS continued
		  SPS continued / solar-sail side-effect
			       SPS & Fusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 1981 12:02:42-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: character
Cc: dlw at mit-ai

   The faults you find in opponents of nuclear power are no more common
than similar faults in the active proponents of nuclear power---and the
proponents usually have more money with which to push their views.

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

Date: 13 Oct 1981 12:08:00-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: space at mit-ai
Subject: booze money
Cc: pourne at mit-mc

   I am curious about any sources indicating that 5% of our GNP
($100 billion out of $2 trillion) is spent on booze.
   Possibly you mean that that much could be raised over a large number
of years---but this is not at all clear from what you have said.
   In fact, I have seen claims that taxes amount to up to 80% of the
retail price of liquor, and the last time I looked, BATF (the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) was not collecting any huge amount of
revenue (my memory oscillates between $7 and $15 billion for everything
put together).

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

Date: 13 Oct 1981 1315-EDT
From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS at CMU-20C>
Subject: Drawbacks of SPS, hazards of fission use
To: space at MIT-MC


	Something which bothers me is the (apparent?) vulnerability
of SPS. Isn't it far too easy for an unfriendly power (political or 
corporate) to knock it out? Would that mean that the stations would
have to be hardened and equipped with anti-missiles? Suppose that
such defenses are needed: what is the likelihood that they would be
scrubbed because of oversight, ignorance, or political necessity 
(you are putting missiles on satellite? And you say it's ONLY for
defense? Hah! Imperialist pig! etc.).

	A concern that I have not been able to answer is the not 
uncommon fear that although fission may be capable of being run
safely, as long as there are ordinary people running it, it won't
be. Consider the apparent attitude of many utilities that a fission 
plant is just another kind of boiler, and needs no more thought
than those used in the past. (Yes it can be argued that because
of ash and other hazards, not even the traditional boilers can
be run as thoughtlessly.) I don't have a great deal of faith in
the safety of such an operation unless everybody in it, from the
everyday joes at the bottom, through the middle managers who used 
to be everyday joes, up to the movers and shakers are both educated
in what is necessary, and motivated to do it. I don't see where 
either the education or motivation are coming from.

						Gene Hastings
-------

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

From: BRUC@MIT-ML
Date: 10/13/81 13:44:38
Subject: Enigmatic letter from NASA and budget cuts

BRUC@MIT-ML 10/13/81 13:44:38 Re: Enigmatic letter from NASA and budget cuts
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
	My wife and I sent a letter to President Reagan in support
of NASA back in March.  We received a reply from James W. McCulla,
Chief, Public Services, Public Affairs Division, NASA dated October 1.
The letter read as follows:

	Your letter to President Reagan has been referred to this office,
	and we are please to respond accordingly.

	Thanks for your combined effort supporting a strong, well-funded
	space program.

	Look for a decided move in the space funding picture during the
	next several months.

They also enclosed a copy of Spinoff 81, a description of NASA spinoffs.
It must have cost them a few dollars to print and send that to me.

	I presume the decided move is some new project ( Space
Operations Center perhaps). I can't imagine they'd send a letter like
that if the "decided move" is a 6% budget cut. The latest round of
budget cuts were proposed before Oct. 1. Does anyone know what's
\really/ going on?

Bob Bruccoleri

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

Date: 13 Oct 1981 1516-CDT
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: subduing Mother Nature
To: space at MIT-MC

Until we're ready and able to create fusion materials ex nihilo, we can
surely dispense with these useless arguments re: fusion vs. SPS from the
philosophical standpoint of "taking" vs. "accepting".  I see no principled
difference between harvesting radiant energy and harvesting deuterium from
the oceans: in either case, we're stuck with whatever Mother Nature has
made available to us.

In any case, arguments such as these will not have the slightest effect
on whatever choice we (or anyone else) make.  Barring any universally
recognized moral issues (on a level with wholesale human sacrifice), the
issue will be resolved on the usual engineering and cost-benefit basis,
with an unfortunate amount of pure politicking thrown in to boot.  And I
really doubt we have enough data now to determine the better solution w.r.t.
making energy available here on earth.  As to using it in space, the answer
is presumably more clear?  (Of course, there is plenty of hydrogen available
in the atmospheres of the gas giants and some of their moons...)
-------

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

Date: 13 Oct 1981 1443-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Bigotry in Space
To: space at MIT-MC

What?!  The japanese or the europeans or ...gasp.. all those people
who speak SWAHILI might build bright, shiny SPS's before we do?!  What
a truly horrifying scenario!  The next thing you know one of them will
marry your daughter.
-------

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

Date: 14 October 1981 03:42-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: booze money
To: cjh at CCA-UNIX
cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, space at MIT-AI

 I have never said that 5% of GNP is spent on liquor. Why should
I? Snce SPS requires something like $80 billion for the first
one, and about $10 for each additional copy (assuming that it is
done from the ground and not done the Criswell way with lunar
base) then some $10 billion a year will do the job handily.  I
am absolutely certain that more than that is spent annually on
liquor.

Nor do I advocate prohibition and confiscation of money that
might have been spent on liquor. If, however, the alternative is
cutting liquor consumption in half or letting civilization
collapse for want of pollution-free energy...

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

Date: 14 October 1981 03:51-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: space heat sinks
To: KING at RUTGERS
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC


 thrown powders including
discussion of many technical problems can be found in the
proceeedings of the third conference on radiation in space,
published by the Ames research labs.

	The conclusion was that this is one method of getting
rid of waste heat. There are said to be others.

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

Date: 14 October 1981 04:11-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPS Flamage
To: Tavares.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
cc: "TO:" at MIT-MC, SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

Sigh. Does NO ONE read anything before making up their minds?

The standard SPS design uses power received on Earth and sent
back up to the satellite as the source power for colimation of
the micro-wave beam.  (The beam is about twice the energy
density of sunlight under the reference plan; certainly no more
than four to six times it under ANY plan.)
	If the beam wanders, the power is no received; if not
received it cannot be retransmitted; if not retransmitted, the
colimator is unpowered; if no colimator, no beam, and the power
is simply dispersed.
		Microwaves are not the only way to get pwoer to
Earth. And for that matter, power in space is worth having even
if none is ever sent to earth.

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

Date: 14 October 1981 04:30-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Budget cutting - yer message regarding same; an idea
To: OAF at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, TAW at SU-AI

If the voters and Congress don't want to invest in space...
Rather than give up without a fight and all move to Japan...
Maybe we can tell Exxon and ITT and Xerox some of the wonderful things
possible in space, and how cheap the initial experiments can be,
and they can pressure Congress to PERMIT these companies to finance
the 4th and 5th shuttle-orbiter and then rent space to other (smaller)
companies to whom we also tell these revelations.
Congress will "benefit" because they can cut that part of the space
budget and spend it elsewhere (Halley, Galileo, LEO) to get us
all of their backs.  Exxon et al will profit, if they also get
Congress to PERMIT these other companies to develop and implement
proprietary industrial processes using rented shuttle space.

I'm not sure this will work. Just a sketch of an idea to bounce
around and fill in the details.

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

Date: 14 October 1981 04:40-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPS continued
To: CSVAX.tuttle at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I don't see how the volume of materials for an SPS is a capital
investment.  Capital means MONEY, not dirt.  If we build a cheap
device on the moon (say $1,000,000 for device and rocket to move
it from LEO to moon) that automatically under remote
control mines ton after ton of lunar dirt and throws it into space,
an after a few years there's enough of it in space to build
an SPS, where's the capital investment?  Answer, except for
the cost of the original moon-mining device, and the personnel
salaries to remote-control it, there is no capital investment.
Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, requires investments of
billions of dollars.  SPS just takes a teensy capital investment and
a few years to give it time to do the mining and fabricating.

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

Date: 14 October 1981 04:54-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPS continued / solar-sail side-effect
To: CSVAX.tuttle at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, minsky at MIT-AI, e.jeffc at UCB-C70

Your calculation of the change of momentum caused by solar sail
effect in SPS ignores the fact that half the time the SPS is going
toward the sun and half the time away so the net momentum over
time is zero. Of course it perturbs it slightly into a funny shaped
orbit and you have to compensate, but it certainly doesn't
build up momentum monotonically over time.

This effect can actually be used to benefit.  Station the SPS over
the North or South pole, instead of in geosync orbit, and somewhat
"behind" the Earth with respect to the incoming light.
If the SPS collector can be angled so that the light that isn't
absorbed is mostly reflected down toward the dark side of the
Earth, the delta-Vee of the sunlight can be directed toward
the center of the Earth, an thus the reaction force pushing the
SPS will be directly upward from Earth, so it just levitates there,
doesn't have to orbit. This makes design of the SPS easier since
it doesn't have to dynamically rotate its collector with respect
to its microwave beam as the assembly moves around the Earth.

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

Date: 14 October 1981 05:32-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPS & Fusion
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC, jpm at SU-AI

Let me take this opportunity to quibble strongly on your claim that
there are many ways to build a fusion reactor but only one way to
harness solar energy in space (build an SPS as you say), and that
somehow that means fusion is more cost-effective.

First, who cares?  It only takes one way.  If all the fusion methods
fail, and the one obvious SPS way works fine, then SPS is ahead of fusion.
The count of methods that "might" work but don't is irrelevant.

But actually you have it backwards.

There are only two ways to make fusion work on Earth:
 1: You confine some fusable fuel (protons and/or deuterons and/or trits)
  at high enough temperature and pressure for long enough time that
  a bunch of the particles fuse and release energy you can collect.
  (That's similar to the way the Sun, and tokamaks, do it.)
 2: You introduce a shock wave in some material so that along the shock
  front particles are thrown together and fuse.  (That's similar to
  the way stars form in spiral arms of galaxies and how gunpowder works.)
Can you think of any other way?

There are more ways to make an SPS:
 1: You spread photo-voltaic cells across a large area and feed the
  electricity into a collector grid.
 2: You spread reflectors across a large area, concentrate the light
  onto a small bunch of high-temperature photo-voltaic cells.
 3: You reflect the light as in 2 but use it to boil some fluid and
  drive a heat engine (steam turbine etc.).
 4: You spread a lot of small reflectors and teensy boilers cross
  a large area and feed the electricity into a collector grid.
 5: You reflect the sunlight directly on some process, such as
  high-temperature materials refining or weather modification,
  instead of making electicity as an intermediary.
 6: You use the momentum-transfer of sunlight to directly drive
  some motion device (like solar sails, but mounted on a rotary
  shaft as in those little toys that ran the wrong way when first
  invented), and then use the motion to direcly run industrial
  processes and/or drive a generator.

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

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

15-Oct-81  0703	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #15   
Date: 15 Oct 1981 0402-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #15
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 15

Today's Topics:
		    SPS vs. Fusion - A response to REM
			     capital for SPS
			     Re: booze money
			      Budget cutting
			SPS and radiation pressure
			      SPS continued
		     "When the Sun goes, we all go"?
			       Booze Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 1981 1158-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: SPS vs. Fusion - A response to REM
To: space at MIT-MC

REM misses the point when we says that there are many ways to build
an SPS.  What I was doing was this: look at the potential points of
vulnerability in each concept.

With solar sattelites, the big problem is not technical feasibility.
The big problem is that any low cost SPS is going to require
asteriodal or lunar material.  We don't really know how hard it is to
build a full scale lunar materials processing plant.  We have no
experience in extraterrestrial industry.  We have never built a
factory that works in zero g or in a vacuum.  We have never built a
factory that uses extraterrestrial materials.  This is not to say that
we shouldn't build such factories.  What I am saying is that we have
no idea how hard it is, or how much it will cost, or what the hidden
snags are.  I suspect that the only way to find out is to go up and do
it.  And this is very expensive.

With fusion, the problem is not building the plants after we're sure they
work.  The problem is designing the plant in the first place.  The problems
in fusion designs tend not to be common to all designs.  Many that are common 
have already been addressed in other types of power plants.  

And for those who argue that the japanese or the russians will develope
SPS first: compare how much they are spending on fusion research to how
much they're spending on SPS research.  The japanese are spending large
amounts of money on the tokamak idea.  Their feeling is that they better 
get a new energy source on line damn quick, before the oil gets expensive.

So, to reiterate, SPS's all share a common problem that may make them
uneconomical, or, may make them require too much start-up capital.
The whole SPS idea can be killed by a single bullet.  Fusion does not
share this problem.  The problems that fusion does have seem much more
amenable to quick technical solution.

We will get SPS if and when we get lunar or asteroidal materials - not
the other way around.
-------

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

Date: 14 Oct 1981 10:34:29-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: capital for SPS
Cc: rem at mit-mc

   $1 million to establish a Lunar catapult? Dream on!$ 
   And if it just throws dirt, how will the dirt be sorted out into
worthwhile metals? (That's probably safer to do on the moon than in
zero-G; the latest I've heard, the "traveling bucket" design has
been dropped, and capsules of refined material (with enough magnetic
metal to respond to the electric catapult) are what would be flung.)

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

Date: 14 Oct 1981 10:01:07-EDT
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: booze money
Cc: space at MIT-AI

In response to your message of Wed Oct 14 03:46:08 1981:

   Any suggestions as to how we bell that particular cat?

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

Date: 14 Oct 1981 0959-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Budget cutting
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Several space advocacy groups, including the L-5 Society, are attempting
to approach Congress with proposals designed to reduce government red
tape involving spaceflight.  The attitude of: ''Well, if you don't
intend to go, at least don't make it so bloody hard for us to go.''
is a much more productive one than another popular outlook: ''You are
all assholes for not going.''

The World Space Foundation has a proposal for an ''Earthport'', duty
free spaceport and industrial park that is being designed with some
of these problems in mind.

What is really needed is some production-line engineering to bring
down the cost of space travel.  Jerry Pournelle mentioned recently
that a standard Shuttle pressure suit costs 14 megabucks.  Clearly
a spacesuit is not as complex as the piece of a jet fighter that
14 megabucks will buy.  A Shuttle has about the same number of parts
as a 747.  But a Shuttle is built by large numbers of highly trained
craftsmen, each being a separate work unlike any other shuttle.  A 
747 is built on an assembly line, turned out by the dozens, and is
reliable as hell (especially compared to a Shuttle).  If humanity's
move into space reaches its third generation, we can expect to 
see those ticket to LEO base get a lot cheaper.

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

Date: 14 Oct 1981 01:37:27-PDT
From: E.jeffc at Berkeley
To: v.space@Berkeley, u:minsky@mit-ai
Subject: SPS and radiation pressure

While plausable, I'm not wholly satisfied that the problem has been
explained away.  You were considering a two-body problem with the Earth
and the SPS as the bodies.  However, the Sun must also be taken into
account, for the SPS is also in orbit about the Sun, and all of the
momentum from radition pressure will be wholly directed to pushing
the SPS away from the Sun.  Unfortunately, I can't determine from
thinking alone whether this revives the problem or not.  What is needed
is a computer simulation which will take all these factors into account.
Does anybody know of one? or does someone know how to do such a
simulation?  I imagine that the moon would have to be taken into account
also.  Anyway, even if the SPS is not blown away from the Earth, it
will still get knocked out of geosyncronous orbit, and I would hate
to see a high power energy beam wandering about the countryside.

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

Date: 14 October 1981 03:59-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPS continued
To: CSVAX.tuttle at UCB-C70
cc: "TO:" at MIT-MC, minsky at MIT-AI, CSVAX.space at UCB-C70,
    e.jeffc at UCB-C70

You have pleaded for the validity of philosophical arguments,
and your prayer has been answered; but that doen't make bad
philosophy valid.  Nor does re-inventing the wheel.  I can well
believe you are "shocked" to discover that SPS might act as a
solar sail, but I assure you others have thought of it as well;
and long ago.  As to the sheer volume of material, per kilowatt
SPS takes up about 1% of the mass of a dam to deliver the same
power. (Actually a 3-metere slice of the 1270 metere Grand
Coulee Dam would if put up as an SPS deliver the same power,
some 9 gigawatts.)  If the sheer volume of material for SPS will
bankrupt us then we are bankrupted; for the entire US power
plant must be replaced over the next thirty years wqhether we
have growth or not; power plants don't last a lot longer than
thirty years.

And SPS is the SMALLEST system that would do that job.  

It is expensive because the people to build it are expensive;
but of course the money is not "spent in space", there being no
one there to cash checks...

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

Date: 14 October 1981 18:48-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: "When the Sun goes, we all go"?
To: CSVAX.upstill at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Forwarding info:
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
	From menlo70!hao!woods  Tue Oct 13 17:45:03 1981
	To: menlo70!ucbvax!upstill
	                      GREG (ucbvax!menlo70!hao!woods)	

I certainly hope not!!! If this species has any desire to survive,
and any intelligence, it won't carefully arrange that when the Sun
dies we'll all kill ourselves.  Within 100 years, unless we do
something stupid like have a nuclear war or like declare it
illegal to go into space, we'll have an awful lot of our population
(more than a thousand, probably more than a million, possibly more
than 1E9) living in space colonies.  Within another 100 years we'll
have colonies orbiting not just the Earth/Moon system but freely
orbiting the Sun.  We'll also have some probes out to other nearby
stars such as Alpha Centauri, Epsilon Eridani, Tau Ceti, Barnards Star.
Within 1000 years we'll have colonies living around some of these
other stars.  Within 10,000 years we'll have populated all the
major stars in our local part of the galaxy.  Within 100,000 years
we will have filled the whole Milky Way galaxy, not stuffed full,
more like the pioneers of North America have now "filled" the
whole continent, "from sea to shining sea", plenty of living space,
just no major areas remaining that are untouched by man.  Within
10,000,000 years (less if we can exceed 0.1 c) we'll have
populated the Andromeda galaxy (M31) too.  Within 500,000,000
years we'll have accomplished my goal of conquering the "final
frontier", the whole Virgo supercluster of galaxies.  Then in
about 5,000,000,000 years, when the Sun burns itself out, the
people living on Earth and in colonies around the Sun will have
to move to some other star or perish.  (Those who colonized
faster-burning stars like Sirius will have to move much much sooner.
I'd worry about them not the people of Earth/Sol.)

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

From: MINSKY@MIT-AI
Date: 10/15/81 00:15:12
Subject: Booze Budget

MINSKY@MIT-AI 10/15/81 00:15:12 Re: Booze Budget
To: SPACE at MIT-AI
Of course, if one were to consider the cost of booze, in
illness and automobile accident and injury -- the latter
might come to the order of 50,000 deaths and crippling injuries
which at a cost of, say, 500,000 each -- adds a few real,
non-taxable costs.

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

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


21-Oct-81  2154	OTA   	Forwarded: SPACE Digest V2 #16   
Date: 20 Oct 1981 0403-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #16
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:
			      Administrivia 
	   SPS vs. Fusion - A response to REM / counterresponse
			 Selling SPS as a weapon
			      SPS as weapon
	     Radiation pressure and and how it applies to SPS
	 Addendum to my previous message about radiation pressure
		 Drawbacks of SPS, hazards of fission use
			   Begg talk at Hahvahd
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Oct 1981 2255-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Administrivia 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The distribution of the SPACE Digest has changed venue.  It is now being
run from site "S1-A".  The only change you should notice is that this
system does not allow anonymous FTP so send mail to SPACE-REQUEST@MC to
request back issues or whatever.
	-Ted Anderson

P.S. Naturally, if I elect to take a vacation for a few days, you can
count on the space digest automatic distribution system screwing up as
soon as I leave.  So tonight we have four days submissions for the price
of one.
	-ota

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

Date: 16 October 1981 10:31-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPS vs. Fusion - A response to REM / counterresponse
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

One quibble.  As far as we know there's no single "bullet" that
can kill fusion.  But there just might be, we don't know.  Maybe like
the second law of thermodynamics (negentropy can't be increased),
there's another basic law of physics that says you can't confine
fusable fuel long enough to make it fuse continuously unless
you use a gravitational well to do it.  If so, the only way to
use fusion energy is to explode bombs (unless you have a black
hole or a star handy). -- This is just idle speculation.  Don't
take it too seriously.

Otherwise: you have some good points.  My answer, let's hurry and
get funding to start space industry.  The sooner we get started,
the sooner we'll know what is practical and what isn't.
However, I quibble a little with your problems.  You don't need
to have the factory run in a vacuum. If necessary, you can
run most of it inside a chamber containing a nitrogen atmosphere.
Gravity can be simulated by rotation.  I also have confidence
that moon materials can be electrolyzed into individual elements
if necessary, at which point you have the same elements to be found
on Earth and thus no new problems not already encountered here.

Does anybody know if anybody has actually tried processing
some of those moonrocks brought back by Apollo? Or are they
so valuable nobody wants to damage them?

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

Date: 16 Oct 1981 1530-CDT
From: Jon Webb <CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Selling SPS as a weapon
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: cs.webb at UTEXAS-20

(I sent a couple related messages on this subject to ARMS-D)
Who's got the bucks?  Well, it sure ain't the Department of Energy or
NASA, who might build SPS as a energy or space system.  And the energy
industry here has way too many sure things they can do will all their
money to build a risky, expensive thing like SPS.  So we need a new
source of funding for SPS.

What does the US need?  Energy?  You've got to be crazy.  When was the
last time we had a gasoline crisis?  It's been years.  And there is very
little support for the space effort nowadays.

What the US needs is POWER.  Not energy, but political power.  SPS
provides a unique source of that power.  

With a concentrated SPS beam (say, 4-6 times regular sunlight) we can
destroy crops.  We can evaporate rain clouds.  In short, we can really
screw up a third-world country we don't like.  For example, suppose we
wanted to punish Khadaffy for his recent inflammatory statements.
Zappo!

And a lot of heat can mess up an industrialized country, too, but
consider what a microwave beam could do.  Microwaves are suspected of
causing bad things like cancer, cataracts, and heart attacks at
extremely low densities.  There would be all kinds of nasty uses for a
powerful microwave beam that could be projected from orbit.

Finally, SPS (as a weapon) provides a literally visibly symbol of US
power.  You could see it at night.  It would be up there, over our
heads.   
 
Think of a huge hand, holding a magnifying glass 22,400 miles above our
heads.  On the wrist is tattooed "U.S.A."  And think of the
command-and-control you can do from there.  I can think of no better
place for a general (or even, maybe, for our president) than in orbit.

Plus, in peacetime, the thing can be used as an energy source.

Jon

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

Date: 16 October 1981 22:08-EDT
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPS as weapon
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     Well, if an SPS is constructed with the intent of maybe using it
as a weapon, then it will be designed so its phased array transmitter
does not require a pilot beam when in weapon mode.

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

From: FONER@MIT-AI
Date: 10/16/81 23:16:07
Subject: Radiation pressure and and how it applies to SPS

FONER@MIT-AI 10/16/81 23:16:07 Re: Radiation pressure and and how it applies to SPS
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
This is a subject that was covered in some depth about a year ago on
this very list.

While I do not remember exact figures, and do not want to go through
the required calculations to find out again, they exist in archives
somewhere.

The basic ideas are as follows:  you get a particular amount of
radiation pressure from the sun.  This is not much...  maybe a thrust
of a few (500?) newtons (this is the same force as applied to about a
50 kilogram weight in 1 G for nonphysics fans).  Not much.  (Note I
assume a "typical" collector area of some tens of kilometers squared.)

You also get thrust from the beam pressure as well.  An initial
calculation showed this to be on the order of maybe 5000 newtons, but
that was later changed to about 20 newtons (40?).  Something like
that.  Very little thrust, and very easy to compensate for.

Could someone with more time and a higher-speed connection to MC see
if he or she can find the relevant letters in the archives?  I'm
pretty sure they were just about a year ago.

Have fun.

						<LNF>

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

From: FONER@MIT-AI
Date: 10/16/81 23:18:04
Subject: Addendum to my previous message about radiation pressure

FONER@MIT-AI 10/16/81 23:18:04 Re: Addendum to my previous message about radiation pressure
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
It occurs to me that the subject may also have been germane to the
Energy@MIT-MC list.  It's quite possible that I'm confused, and that
the old messages on SPS radiation pressure were sent to that list and
not this one.

Anybody wanna search that archive, too?

Ciao.

						<LNF>

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

Date: 19 October 1981 01:48-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Drawbacks of SPS, hazards of fission use
To: HASTINGS at CMU-20C
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Re vulnerabilities: are supertankers safe from enemy action?
Even anonymous enemy action? Surely it is easier to knowck ouot
an oil field or the Alaska pipeline than to knock out an SPS.

But yes, they are somewhat vulnerable. 

Re fission and operators, I'm willing to give up fission if we
can have space power systems; what will happen, though, is that
SPS is now opposed in the name of fusion; but when fusion will
actually work and put kw into the system, they'll have lots of
reasons why it shouldn't be used either.  The anti-Amerika Krowd
isn't so much opposed to any particular technology unless it
would WORK...

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

Date: 19 Oct 1981 2220-EDT
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX>
Subject: Begg talk at Hahvahd
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-XX, mph at MIT-XX, ludwig at MIT-XX, wayne at MIT-XX

	I just got back from a talk that he gave at Hahvahd to the
Astro society there. My general impression of the man is that he
is not a 'politician', honest to a fault, seriously interested and
committed to space, and enough of a realist to deal with running
a major government agency. In short, I am impressed.
	His talk was not too interesting, but the questions/answers
afterward were a gold mine. The only interesting thing in his talk
was that he gave prominent mention to the LEO station as a major
goal after SpaceTel, Galileo and VOIR. He was also interested in
remote operated moon mining stuff in the medium (10 year) range.
Sounds familiar!
	As to the questions: he made a strong commitment to keeping
the Deep Space network running, and to continuing with the Voyager on
to Uranus and Neptune. He feels that there is growing commitment to
space among the general population and in Washington as its role as a
technological ground breaker is appreciated more (there was an
undertone of competitive nationalism against Japan/Europe in this).
He feels that the big policy statement from the OSTP will be a long
time coming and not be very forceful when it does. His most important
operational commitments is getting the shuttle operational and
economic (he had two less important ones, the second of which was
laying long-range plans, but the other has faded from memory - it
might have been keeping appropriations from further cuts). He is
encouraging to commercial commitments, and hopes to see them grow. He
is very interested in getting new starts out of Congress in the two
year time frame. He thinks that NASA has not been hit much harder than
other agencies, and in fact thinks it has come out fairly well. He
made the point that the budget has been dropping continuously for many
years, and the relative importance of space science within the NASA
budget has stayed constant, but that the overall cuts have affected
it. He feels that the Europeans, although very mad over Solar/Polar,
are still very interested in continued cooperation.
	That's all I can dredge out of my (and several others') memories.
He seemed quite optimistic, and I guess I do too, after hearing him.
			Noel
-------

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

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

21-Oct-81  2154	OTA   	Forwarded: SPACE Digest V2 #17   
Date: 21 Oct 1981 0402-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #17
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:
			   Carbonless plastics
			  Peaceful Uses of Rocks
				  Cosmos
			    Radiation pressure
	   SPS vs. Fusion - A response to REM / counterresponse
			   Begg talk at Hahvahd
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 1981 1124-PDT
Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL
Subject: Carbonless plastics
From:  William "Chops" Westfield <BillW@SRI-KL>
To: space at MC
Cc: billw
Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]20-Oct-81 11:24:02.BILLW>

Aren't the silicones all carbonless ? (basically polymerized sand,
I think...) Furthermore dont silicones offer all sorts of advantages
over most other plastics in harsh envirenments ? (Things like ability
to withstand high temperature extremes, lack of vloitile to boil off,
and so on ?)

Bill W

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

Date: 20 Oct 1981 1409-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Peaceful Uses of Rocks
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: ota at S1-A, jef at LBL-UNIX

There has been a discussion on ARMS-D about the military potential of
the SPS.  It was pointed out that if you can build an SPS you can also
drop large masses onto your enemy.  Dropped from infinity, 1 ton of
rock = 60 tons of TNT, so a 4 meter spherical asteroid yields 60 KT
(thanks to OTA for these figures).  

There have been proposals for using nuclear explosives for peaceful
purposes (digging canals and such).  These efforts were scuttled by
the test ban treaty.  Using asteroids we can get around the problem of
radioactive fallout, not to mention the savings in fissile material.

This illustrates that there is an additional energy source in space:
gravitational potential energy.  Is there an easy controlled way of
extracting this energy? 
-------

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

Date: 20 Oct 1981 16:51:11-PDT
From: vax135!hocsb!dcs at Berkeley
FROM: d.c.smith
TO: vax135!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
DATE: 10/20/81, 12:38 PM
SUBJECT: Cosmos
Can anyone tell me if Carl Sagan's series "Cosmos" can be purchased on
videotape?

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

Date: 20 October 1981 22:58-EDT
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Radiation pressure
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     For a beam of light, the radiation pressure P (in Newtons/meter^2)
is given by U/c, where U is the intensity (in Watts/meter^2) and c =
3.0e8 meters/second is the speed of light.  Taking the intensity as
1 kW/m^2, the pressure is 3.3e-6 N/m^2.  This ignores the pressure of
solar wind.  The radiation beamed down by an SPS produces a recoil,
but since only 10% or so of the incident solar energy gets into the beam,
the recoil force is only 10% of the incident force.

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

Date: 21 October 1981 03:53-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPS vs. Fusion - A response to REM / counterresponse
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, DIETZ at USC-ECL

MOONROCKS CAN BE SIMULATED TO ANY DEGREE OF SIMILARITY YOU WANT,
AND IN VERY LARGE QUANTITIES; PROCESSING HAS BEEN DONE ON
SIMULACRA

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

Date: 21 October 1981 04:04-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Begg talk at Hahvahd
To: JNC at MIT-XX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, mph at MIT-XX, ludwig at MIT-XX, wayne at MIT-XX

I TTO AM and have been impressed with Beggs, and with his Deputy
Hans Mark.  When Beggs made his first public appearance as
Administrator at an AIAA convention, I overheard someone in the
audience say "Jeez, we got a philosopher for an
administrator..."

As to public acceptance of space, it's mostly that they are
finally becoming AWARE of public activities and public interest;
washington doesn't listen to the nation, but it does read its
mail.
	The L-5 campaigns have been very effective.  Note also
that in a few short years the idea of lunar mines in this
century hs become an acceptable goal.
	Please excuse the horrid typing.  I get NO feedback on
this loop in the net; the lines are very flakey, and will be for
a while until I can get a new 1200 baud system and operate on a
different TIP.
Thanks for puttin  up with the noise.

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

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


23-Oct-81  0403	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #18   
Date: 23 Oct 1981 0402-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #18
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 18

Today's Topics:
			      Administrivia
			   carbonless plastics
		    Deviousness for deviousness' sake
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 1981 1633-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Administrivia
To: space at MIT-MC

For reasons far too twisted to describe here, some of you saw the first
message of this digest in yesterdays digest.  Todays digest has the same
issue number as yesterday's abortive one did.  That is because only a few
people got yesterdays digest and its contents are been reproduced here for
completeness.  Basically yesterday shouldn't have happened.

	Ted Anderson

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

From: CARLF@MIT-AI
Date: 10/21/81 11:49:46
Subject: carbonless plastics

CARLF@MIT-AI 10/21/81 11:49:46 Re: carbonless plastics
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
	The polymerized sand you ask about is glass. The silicones
consist of a backbone of alternating Si and O, with two hydrocarbon
side groups coming off of each Si.  CH3 is a typical side group. They
can indeed stand high temperatures, up to several hundred degrees
centigrade. Silicones can indeed be made with a very low fraction of
volatile component; grease used in vacuum systems is silicone.
Silicone is also reasonably invulnerable to ultraviolet. The problem
with it is that it isn't very strong stuff. I've never heard of
anything more solid than rubber being made from silicone. What
prompts you to this query about carbonless plastics?  If you really
want to know, I can tell you quite a bit.

							-- Carl      

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

Date: 22 Oct 1981 1539-EDT
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX>
Subject: Deviousness for deviousness' sake
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-XX

	Perhaps my mind has fallen into the affliction noted above,
but I had an interesting thought. In agencies that the current
administration doesn't like (e.g. EPA and the Justice Dept anti-trust
people) they have appointed people who are whole-heartedly dismantling
the agencies' programs. Perhaps the fact that they have appointed
someone as forceful as Beggs indicates closet sympathies for NASA?
Maybe we can look to increased support in the future.
		Noel

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

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

24-Oct-81  0404	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #19   
Date: 24 Oct 1981 0402-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #19
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 19

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

Date: 23 Oct 1981 1321-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
To: space at MIT-MC

!a081  0758  23 Oct 81
BC-The Space Age I, Adv 28,990
$Adv 28
For Release Wed Oct 28 and thereafter
For use in connection with the space shuttle
Space Age I: Space Spinoffs.
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's space age is nearly a quarter century
- and $125 billion - old. What return has there been from that
investment?
    Plenty.
    From its breathtaking beginning, space technology quickly mushroomed
from a Cold War prestige contest into an ever-growing
multi-billion-dollar market for hardware and services.
    It has spurred several new industries, and, in the process, hundreds
of thousands of jobs and skilled people.
    The technology of Apollo and other programs - computers,
electronics, metals - has found its way into medicine, communications,
transportation, industrial processes, public safety, construction,
home appliances, recreation and food products.
    Americans, 73 of them, have logged a total of more than 2 1/2 years in
space, and they have walked on the moon. Unmanned marvels have landed
on Mars, penetrated the clouds of Venus, dashed through the rings of
Saturn and are probing the outer reaches of the solar system.
    Military strategies have changed dramatically, and there has been
vast enrichment of scientific knowledge.
    Space exploration has revolutionized many things, ''but it has not,
so far, revolutionized our lives,'' says Alex Roland, a historian
with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    ''To date, the space age has had a less profound impact than the
atomic age that preceded it,'' he said. ''If tomorrow a green elephant
steps in front of the Viking lander on Mars, or if orbiting solar
installations take up some of the energy burden of the 21st century,
then perhaps the present era may one day be viewed as revolutionary.''
    Nevertheless, Roland said, the legacy from space has been
substantial, and in the last decade the benefits have showered down on
almost every nation.
    Space spinoffs are too numerous to list here, but the story of Echo
is a good example of how this research filters into the commercial
world.
    Echo was America's first experimental communications satellite, a
large balloon, 100 feet in diameter.
    In developing Echo, NASA needed a special material for the balloon's
skin. It had to be highly reflective to ''bounce'' radio signals and
it had to be lightweight and extremely thin so it could be folded
into a beachball-sized container for delivery to orbit, where it would
automatically inflate.
    The material selected was mylar polyester coated with a reflective
layer of thin aluminum particles so fine that Echo's skin had a
thickness about half that of the cellophane on a cigarette package.
    This process of coating the polyester with a super-fine mist of
vacuum-vaporized aluminum was called metallization - and Echo became
the catalyst that transformed a small-scale operation into a
flourishing industry.
    Echo's requirements triggered extensive research and development of
metallization techniques for many space uses, mostly to insulate
spacecraft, manned and unmanned, from heat and radiation.
    The research resulted in a still-growing line of commercial
metallized products - insulated outdoor garments, packaging materials
for frozen foods, wall coverings, aircraft covers, bedwarmers, window
shades, labels, candy wrappers, reflective blankets and photographic
reflectors.
    Of all the promises of the early space era, the communications
satellite is the most fully realized. In 1963, private stockholders
and companies like AT&T, ITT and GTE joined to form Comsat, the
Communications Satellite Corporation. A year later, Intelsat, the
International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, was created,
with Comsat as a major partner.
    Intelsat has grown from 19 to 106 member nations, with more than 200
ground stations around d3    e. Private firms and foreign
governments also have commissioned launches of their own
communications satellites, which are drawing the world closer
together.
    Telephones and television sets are sprouting where they've never
been seen before - from the Arctic Circle to remote jungle islands.
Hundreds of millions of people can simultaneously watch live a single
event, such as the Olympics, a royal wedding or men walking on the
moon.
    Innovative companies are merging computer and satellite technologies
to transmit financial, medical and other data across continents and
oceans in seconds, significantly altering the way the world does
business.
    For about $15,000 anyone can purchase the equipment needed to
receive pictures and data from a fleet of U.S. weather satellites -
and more than 800 users spread over every nation have made the
investment.
    While the goal of accurate two-week weather forecasts is still years
away, these orbiting weather eyes have greatly improved short-range
predictions and they have saved countless lives by warning of
approaching hurricanes and other storms and of flood threats from
rains and melting snow.
    The next likely candidates for commerical operation are America's
Earth resources satellites, whose sensors and pictures are used as an
aid to oil and mineral exploration, crop forecasting, forest
inventories, and choosing where to build new factories to avoid
geologic faults. They guide boats to good fishing, environmentalists
to pollution sources and prospectors to uranium deposits.
    NASA sells the pictures to anyone who wants them at a nominal price,
and $6 million worth were sold to non-government users last year,
with the biggest customers being mineral and petroleum companies. The
images, for example, are presently being used by U.S. companies
searching for oil in China.
    The government and Congress are looking into how to transfer this
technology into the private sector.
    Medicine also has benefitted greatly from space technology.
    Pacemakers and other implantable heart aids are spinoffs from
miniaturized space circuitry. So are fast, accurate diagnostic
machines for many diseases.
    Because of small sensors developed to monitor astronauts' physical
condition in space, a single nurse seated at a console can remotely
check the conditions of several hospital patients simultaneously.
    And an emergency ward can get vital information such as pulse and
heart rate from a hospital-bound ambulance because of space-developed
monitoring equipment squeezed into a kit the size of a briefcase.
    Miniaturized space electronics also produced digital watches and
pocket calculators and made the United States the world leader in
computers.
End Adv
    
ap-ny-10-23 1054EST
**********
!a082  0807  23 Oct 81
BC-The Space Age II, Adv 28,460
$Adv 28
For Release Wed Oct 28 and thereafter
For use in connection with the space shuttle
Space Age II: Updating the History of the Universe
With Laserphotos
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Dr. James A. Van Allen was on a Navy icebreaker
bound for Antarctica to study cosmic rays when Russia launched Sputnik
1 in 1957.
    He received a cable urging him to hurry home to prepare instruments
for an American orbital attempt. He could not return immmediately,
but wired instructions on how to hook up a cosmic ray geiger counter
he had devised.
    On Jan. 31, 1958, America's first artificial satellite, Explorer 1,
rocketed into orbit.
    Van Allen, a State University of Iowa physicist, was astounded by
the first data radioed to Earth: a record of high radiation counts
alternating with periods of long silence.
    He got the same results from Explorer 3, launched three months
later. He concluded the geiger counters were not broken, nor were they
silent for lack of radiation. At times, they simply were being
bombarded with such high doses they could not register it.
    Surrounding the Earth, Van Allen announced, is a huge band of
high-energy radiation composed of particles trapped in our planet's
magnetic field. This Van Allen Belt stretched from about 400 to more
than 40,000 miles into space, extending the boundary of the atmosphere
influencing Earth.
    The discovery stunned the scientific world, which generally believed
the Earth's upper air merged into the density of interplanetary gas
at an altitude of about 600 miles.
    The findings also created a revolution in the space sciences by
demonstrating the ability of satellites to gather information from
above the distorting influence of the lower levels of the atmosphere.
    For centuries, telescopes were the main data-collecting tools on the
universe. But they were limited because of the atmospheric blanket
which makes viewing space akin to looking at a fish through 35 feet of
water.
    Scientists began devising ever-more-sophisticated instruments, and
investigations by hundreds of satellites have drawn this basic picture
on interplanetary space between the Earth and its sun:
    Great flare eruptions on the seething surface of the sun send huge
tongues of radiation, the solar wind, streaming through space at
speeds of more than 1 million miles an hour.
    The Earth's magnetic field acts like a protective umbrella, trapping
the radiation particles and forming the Van Allen belt. Without this
protection, life as we know it on Earth could not survive.
    During periods of heavy flare activity on the sun, great amounts of
radiation are dumped into the Van Allen belt, causing magnetic
storms, disturbing radio communications and influencing weather.
Particles flowing through magnetic field openings at the North and
South Poles cause auroral displays like the fabled Northern Lights.
End Adv
    
ap-ny-10-23 1103EST
**********
!a088  0841  23 Oct 81
BC-The Space Age IV, Adv 28,930
$Adv 28
For Release Wed Oct 28 and thereafter
For use in connection with the space shuttle
Space Age IV: The Military, Seizing the High Ground
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - American space reconnaissance photos are already
so good that they can tell whether a soldier has shaved - from more
than 100 miles up.
    That's today. What about the future?
    Laser battle stations armed with ''death rays' and protected by
dart-like spaceships.
    Orbiting command posts directing ground, sea and air forces.
    Killer satellites stalking the skies.
    The United States and the Soviet Union have these capabilities under
way or on the drawing boards. Should an all-out arms race occur in
this decade, these space-age military concepts could transform global
military strategies.
    The reflyable space shuttle gives the United States an edge - for
now.
    The Soviets - with nothing similar - have denounced the shuttle as a
weapon system in disguise, claiming its sole purpose is to help
America dominate the Earth. They don't mention that the Soviet Union
itself possesses the only operational space weapon system - a
satellite killer capable of blowing U.S. payloads out of the sky.
    Pentagon officials say that in the last decade the Soviets have
invested about twice as much money as the United State in military
research and development, creating a growing risk of technological
surprise.
    American observers say that that 75 percent of the more than 100
satellites the Soviets launch each year have military assignments and
that their active Salyut space station project is aimed primarily at
perfecting a manned military capability in orbit.
    The military will fly nearly 100 shuttle missions in the next
decade. But the Pentagon says these so-called ''blue shuttle''
missions are defensive in nature, using man to more efficiently and
cheaply do the jobs now being done by expendable rockets - principally
placing military payloads in orbit, with the added dimension of being
able to service them periodically.
    More
    
ap-ny-10-23 1138EST
**********
!a090  0859  23 Oct 81
BC-The Space Age IV, Adv 28, 1st Add, a088,620
WASHINGTON: them periodically.
    On the more exotic and ominous side, the shuttle within a few years
will be a testbed for laser beam weapons that could, if perfected,
attack hostile satellites and destroy enemy missiles as they rise
above the atmosphere. And shuttles could ferry up men and equipment
for the construction of those battle stations if they become
necessary.
    From the very beginning of the space age, the military leaders of
the United States and the Soviet Unoin saw the benefits of using this
new ''high ground.'' The first military satellite was America's
Discoverer 1, launched in 1959, to take photographs and return the
film to Earth in a capsule that was snared over the Pacific by an Air
Force plane.
    Technology has taken great strides since then, and now the security
of both nations is increasingly dependent upon orbiting satellites.
    U.S. and Soviet payloads dispatch military messages around the
world; send navigation signals to ships, planes, submarines and troops
in the field; are alert to warn instantly of a missile attack, and
spy on each other and other nations with high-resolution cameras.
    U.S. space cameras for months have taken special notice of Soviet
troop movements in and around Afghanistan and Poland.
    President Johnson once said that the reconnaissance photos were
worth many times the entire U.S. investment in all space technology.
    And last year, President Carter said: ''Photo reconnaissance
satellites have become an important stabilizing factor in world
affairs in the monitoring of arms agreements.''
    There is growing concern at the Pentagon because the Soviets have
introduced a new destabilizing element with their development of a
killer satellite: a satellite that can track down its orbiting target,
maneuver near it, and explode, destroying both.
    Pentagon observers say the hunter satellite is capable of striking
targets out to 600 miles, which makes America's navigation and
reconnaissance satellites vulnerable. Communications and
missile-warning satellites are stationed 22,300 miles up, but within a
few years they too may come within range of advanced killers or laser
beams.
    The United States has sought for more than two years to negotiate a
ban on killer satellites, but talks with the Soviets have been
unsuccessful. So, the Defense Department is developing its own
satellite destroyer, to be operational in about two years.
    Defense planners also are considering several methods for protecting
military payloads from ambush. Included are satellites hardened
against radiation damage, and others that could evade an attacker,
eject decoys to confuse it, or fire a laser blast at it.
    They believe the Soviets have an edge in laser weaponry, and some
experts estimate that the Soviet Union could orbit a system of small
laser battle stations by 1986 - three to four years before the United
States would have that capability.
    A laser beam weapon would generate a ray that travels in a straight,
intense, single wave path. It could, at high power, cut through thick
steel. Several shuttle flights are earmarked to prove out laser
weapon technology.
    Another, more potent, space weapon being researched by both nations
is the charged-particle beam, believed to be several years away. In
such a beam, streams of highly-concentrated, high-velociy sub-atomic
particles would strike with such enormous energy that they would burn
or melt their targets.
    The shuttle will carry its first military payloads next year, and by
1985 the Air Force plans to make heavy use of at least two of the
five shuttles.
    The military is building its own shuttle launch base at Vandenberg
Air Force Base, Calif., and a secure control center at Peterson Air
Force Base, Colo. Until these are ready, the ''blue shuttles'' will
take off from the space agency's facility at Cape Canaveral, Fla.
End Adv for Release Wed Oct 28 and thereafter
    
ap-ny-10-23 1155EST
**********
-------

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

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

28-Oct-81  0403	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #20   
Date: 28 Oct 1981 0402-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #20
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 20

Today's Topics:
			ICs and the space program
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 1981 11:46:39-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley
Subject: ICs and the space program

I have often seen the claim that today's VLSI chips can be directly
linked to the space program's need for miniaturization.  Is this true?
Can anyone on this list name specific developments, products, etc.,
that would establish this link?

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

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

29-Oct-81  0403	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #21   
Date: 29 Oct 1981 0402-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #21
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 21

Today's Topics:
		      Re: IC's and the space program
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #20
				ERRATA   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 1981 11:13:56-EST
From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Re: IC's and the space program

   Certainly there was a greater need for miniaturization in our
space program, since there was less time and money available to
develop the grossly powerful boosters the Russians were using
(it's something of a truism that in the "space race" the Russians
went for brute power while we went for compactness). Consider
that the first Russian satellite weighed something over 100 pounds
while the first American satellites were in the 5-10 pound class
but certainly did more than 5-10% as much work.

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

Date: 28 Oct 1981 1205-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS at USC-ECL>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #20
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: TCS at USC-ECL
In-Reply-To: Your message of 28-Oct-81 0402-PST

VLSI TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN ENCOURAGED IN A GENERAL WAY BY THE SPACE PROGRAM,
BUT THE LINKAGE IS NOT REALLY DIRECT. THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT IN SEMICONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN FOR EARTH BASED
COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS, SUCH AS LARGE, FAST COMPUTERS. SEMICONDUCTOR
PROCESSING IS VERY CAPITAL INTENSIVE, AND THE SMALL VOLUME ENTAILED IN
MOST SPACE APPLICATIONS IS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE CAPITAL EXPENSE.
THE CURRENT PUSH FOR EXPANDING SEMICONDUCTOR CAPABILITIES COMES PRIMARILY
FROM THE MILITARY'S VHSIC PROGRAM, WHICH WILL HAVE SPACE APPLICATIONS BUT
IS NOT DRIVEN BY SPACE.

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

Date: 28 Oct 1981 2221-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: ERRATA   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I was called to my attention (by only one person) that my figures for dropping
rocks on the earth were in error.  In particular they were high by a factor of
4.18 (the number of joules in a calorie).  I forgot that a tonne of HE is
a billion calories not a billion Joules.

The calculation is straight forward:
The potential well of the earth is about 11 km/s.  Thus the kinetic energy is
.5*11000^2 Joules/Kg = 6e7; a tonne is 1000 kg so we have, 6e10 J/Tonne;
now divide by 4e9 J/Tonne for HE and we get: 15 Tonnes of energy per tonne
of mass.

Sorry to foul it up in the first place.

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

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

30-Oct-81  0402	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #22   
Date: 30 Oct 1981 0402-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #22
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 22

Today's Topics:
		   Editorial in Science of October 30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 1981 1239-EST
From: MPH at MIT-XX
Subject: Editorial in Science of October 30.
To: space at mc

There is an interesting (and in this group, controversial) editorial
in the October 30 issue of Science. The gist of the editorial is that
NASA should cease devoting so much of its limited resources to Shuttle
development, and spend more on scientific projects, such as planetary
exploration. The author draws an analogy between the Shuttle and the Concorde,
both of which are characterized as technically feasible,
but economically "20 to 50 years" ahead of their times.

-------

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

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

31-Oct-81  0402	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #23   
Date: 31 Oct 1981 0402-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #23
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 23

Today's Topics:
			 Who has a Space archive?
			 OCT 30 SCIENCE EDITORIAL
			ICs and the space program
		   Editorial in Science of October 30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  30 October 1981 12:49 est
From:  Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Who has a Space archive?
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 29 October 1981 07:02 est from Ted Anderson

Does anyone on MIT-Multics keep an archive of space mail?  If not, is
there a publicly-accessible archive elsewhere?  I've been keeping an archive,
but I'm sure it would be more cost-effective just to learn where to find
someone else's.

[Actually, people have asked this sort of question before.  I am not
aware of a single copy of the SPACE archive other than the one I
maintain here.  If there are others I would appreciate hearing about
it so that I could maintain a list of hosts where archives are kept.
	Thanks,
	Ted Anderson]

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

Date: 30 Oct 1981 1241-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS at USC-ECL>
Subject: OCT 30 SCIENCE EDITORIAL
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: tcs at USC-ECL, KATZ at USC-ISIF, PAINE at USC-ECL

IN THEORY IT MIGHT BE NICE TO SEPERATE THE SPACE PROGRAM INTO COMMERCIAL,
MILITARY, AND SCIENCE/RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS, BUT THE BIG LOSER IN THAT
KIND OF SETUP WOULD BE THE SCIENCE. EVEN THOUGH I (AND PROBABLY MOST
PEOPLE ON THIS LIST) FEEL THERE IS SOME VALUE TO THE PLANETARY PROGRAM, IT
PROBABLY COULDN'T STAND ON IT'S OWN IN THE BATTLE FOR FUNDS.

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

Date: 30 Oct 1981 14:35:19-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley

This editorial about restricting NASA Shuttle use is poorly reasoned.

Historically, the time of
maximum manned activity in space has been the same
time during which the scientific exploration of
space has had its most new starts.  The funding mechanism
works this way, and there is no hope of changing it.
Specifically on the Shuttle, the military is using 50%
of its capacity, and if NASA drops out of this program
it would be 100%, with the result that NASA lost the
achievement of a decade of work.  This argument is at
least 15 years old, and usually given when impending
cutbacks force professional space scientists to begin
looking sideways for more funding instead of directly
addressing the source of their funds.  The indirect
result is that a pipeline which has been threatened by
constriction actually gets constricted.  (An argument
based on if we don't hang together we'll hang separately.)
Besides, we aren't just hauling businessmen on 3 hour
trips.

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

Date: 30 Oct 1981 12:02:52-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!POURNE@MIT-MC at Berkeley
Via: duke!decvax!ucbvax
Date: 29 October 1981 03:07-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: ICs and the space program
To: decvax!duke!unc!smb at UCB-C70
cc: decvax!duke!unc!space at UCB-C70

try sabre

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

Date: 31 October 1981 05:28-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Editorial in Science of October 30.
To: MPH at MIT-XX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I haven't read the editorial, but I generally agree with your summary,
NASA should go ahead with the first 2 or 3 shuttles, but let industry
pay for the other 2 or 3 if industry really wants to use them.  NASA should
spend its money, beyond the first 2 or 3, on more urgent things like
LEO, Lunar-Polar, Asteroid, lunar-telepresence, mass-driver, ... and more
scientifically-interesting things like Galileo and a Saturn/Dione/Titan
orbiter/radar ...

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

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

01-Nov-81  1604	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #24   
Date: 01 Nov 1981 0403-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #24
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 24

Today's Topics:
			      Dial-a-Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 1981 17:00:09-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley
Subject: Dial-a-Shuttle

Anyone have the number for it?

[Yeah, its 213-922-4636 -ota]

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

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

02-Nov-81  0403	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #25   
Date: 02 Nov 1981 0403-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #25
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 25

Today's Topics:
			     Missing digest.
				 shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  1 Nov 1981 2139-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Missing digest.
To: space at MIT-MC

Due to hardware problems the digest of the day before yesterday, issue #23
was not sent correctly.  Some people received it twice, some not at all,
perhaps a few people got it exactly once.  I you didn't receive the digest
#23, dated Oct 31, let me know and I will forward you a copy.
	-Ted Anderson

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

Date:  1 Nov 1981 2139-PST
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
Subject: shuttle
To: space at MIT-MC


!n105  2035  01 Nov 81
BC-FLIGHT-2takes-11-02
    By Russ Robinson
    (c) 1981 The Baltimore Sun (Field News Service)
    KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. - It will take 607 people to launch the
Space Shuttle on its second flight Wednesday, but within 10 years,
NASA hopes to reduce that number to three people.
     Only when the shuttle program can operate like a modern day airline
will it be economically feasible and open up space to the average
man, officials say.
     Once space flight is routine, NASA planners forsee hotels in space,
orbiting cities where workers will manufacture goods that can only be
produced in a weightless environment, giant power plants that convert
unfiltered sunlight into electricity and ultimately, mining on the
moon.
    By the 1990s, NASA hopes to be making a minimum of 40 flights a
year. To do that, the shuttle will have to pay for itself, said
Andrew Pickett, manager of advanced planning and technology at the
space center.
     ''NASA has toyed with the idea of turning the shuttle over to a
private corporation which would operate it in a quasi-commericial
manner, much like an airline,'' Pickett said. Several aerospace firms
are interested enough in the idea to conduct feasibility studies on
it, he said.
     If the shuttle does develop into a space age airline, it could open
space up to the ''average'' man, Pickett said. Although he refused to
name it, Pickett said that currently a major hotel firm is examining
plans for vacations in space.
     NASA has had a private consultant look into the idea and a report
issued by the space agency indicates that a 100-room ''space hotel''
could be feasible bythe year 2000.
    The consultant estimated that a round trip aboard the shuttle and a
few days in the hotel would cost about $5,000 in today's currency.
     A study group from NASA's Ames Research Center and Stanford
University took the concept a step further. The group drew up plans
for a 10,000-person space city placed between the earth and the moon.
Their report indicates that the city might be b r9k)moon.
     The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics said in its
study of both concepts that space colonies could be self-supporting.
     ''It's almost certain that studies on plants will lead to being
able to culture plants for space colonies and that these plants will
be able to use human waste products to generate food and oxygen,''
the AIAA said in a recent report.
     The report sees the city workers operating materials processing
plants, producing metals, drugs and chemical solutions that would be
possible only in the weightless environment and vacuum of space.
    The colonies could be powered by giant solar panels that convert
sunlight into electricity. A giant sunlight conversion unit - perhaps
miles wide-circling the earth could provide pollutant free
electricity in the future, engineers believe.
     Once the orbiting station had converted the sunshine to
electricity, it would be beamed to earth as microwaves, engineers
said. The space shuttle makes such a plant possible because the
shuttle can make repeated trips into orbit to carry the parts
necessary to assemble the orbiting power station.
     But the first step is to make spaceflight much more simp5e tis.
     NE&S S SP 1/8ACF IS STILL IN 5/8VELOPMENTAL STAGES, SAID Alfred M.
Carey, director of launch operations for Rockwell International,
chief contractor for the shuttle.
    MORE
    
nyt-11-01-81 2335est
**********
!n106  2041  01 Nov 81
BC-FLIGHT-1stadd-11-02
    x x x for the shuttle.
    
    Theoretically, he said, the shuttle could be launched with just 45
technicians in the space center firing room. To launch an Apollo
mission to the moon, it took 450 workers, checking various systems
and monitoring computer programs.
     ''It took 84 hours to count down a Saturn 5 mission to the moon,''
Carey said. ''Once the shuttle is completely operational, the final
countdown should take two hours.
     ''The amazing thing is that the shuttle is 10 times more complex
than the Apollo or Saturn vehicles,'' he said. In the moon program,
the Apollo was the capsule in which the astronaut rode and the Saturn
5 was the rocket that put them in space.
     ''Ultimately, we want a guy to be able to launch himself'' (in the
shuttle), Carey said. ''Eventually you can eliminate the whole
countdown.''
     The secret is computers, he said. It was a problem with the
computers that temporarily delayed the Shuttle's maiden voyage in
April.
     Five computers aboard the Shuttle control almost all the craft's
functions, said Gary Coen, a flight director at Johnson Space Center.
The computers at the Kennedy site and Johnson Space Center are
basically for monitoring the craft, he said.
     Once technicians and engineers are sure that the computers and
programs aboard the shuttle are reliable, the ground monitoring won't
be necessary, he said.
     NASA envisions shuttle pilots becoming the equivalent of space
airline pilots. When the system is complete, the astronaut should be
able to climb aboard his ship on the launch pad, run through a
computer check of his systems, get takeoff clearance from a space air
traffic controller, push the button and be on the way.
     At Johnson Space Center in Houston, a flight controller will be
monitoring the takeoff, but he might be monitoring several other
shuttle flights at the same time, Coen said. Hence the three people
need to make the flight: the pilot, the space air traffic controller
and the flight controller.
     NASA officials admit it all sounds pretty far-fetched. But Kennedy
Space Center Director Richard Smith pointed out that although
Wednesday's launch is only the shuttle's second test flight, there
are already customers for Shuttle flights through 1986. Most of the
launches have been reserved by communications satellite companies,
but about 30 percent of them are for the U.S. Air Force.
     And remember too, Smith said, the Wright Brothers never dreamed in
1903 that aviation would advance to the point that in 1981 there
would be an air traffic controllers strike.
    END
    
nyt-11-01-81 2341est
**********
-------

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

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

03-Nov-81  1511	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #26   
Date: 03 Nov 1981 0403-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #26
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:
			 Re:  Dial-a-Shuttle    
			       shuttle news
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 02 Nov 1981 1022-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a241  1508  31 Oct 81
AM-Shuttle-Satellite,340
Air Force Launches Secret Satellite
By HARRY F. ROSENTHAL
Associated Press Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - A launch pad technician isolated in the
cockpit of Columbia felt the 18th-story space shuttle tremble
Saturday, heard an ominous rumble and feared he was riding an errant
space ship into orbit.
    Pulse racing, he dove for Columbia's escape hatch. Then he saw the
cause of the noise - an Air Force rocket that was hurling a secret
satellite into orbit.
    In the understatement of a Rockwell International spokesman, the man
was ''extremely relieved.''
    The noise from the 4:22 a.m. launch awakened many residents of the
area and prompted some to ask if the space shuttle had made an early
exit.
    No one was more interested than the man - an employee of Rockwell -
who was working alone in the closed-off cockpit of the shuttle which
is being readied for launch next Wednesday.
    Alone in the Columbia cockpit 180 feet above the launch pad, all he
could tell was that the shuttle was shaking. When the sound of the
Titan 3C rocket reached him, he thought the shuttle's two booster
rockets had ignited.
    Rockwell spokesman Dick Barton reported that the workman, whom he
would not name, made a beeline for the escape hatch. Then he saw the
orbit-bound Air Force rocket.
    The Air Force hadn't announced the shot in advance, and reported
only that a Titan 3C space launch vehicle had been fired successfully.
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration spokesman Hugh Harris
said several reporters here to cover the shuttle launch called NASA's
information office to ask if somehow the shuttle had blasted off
early.
    The Air Force for years hasn't made advance announcements on
military satellite launchings here.
    They mainly involve missile warning, communications and navigation
satellites. Most reconnaissance satellites are launched from
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.
    
ap-ny-10-31 1805EST
***************

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

Date: 02 Nov 1981 1435-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Re:  Dial-a-Shuttle    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

 02-Nov-81  0628	chico!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley 	Re:  Dial-a-Shuttle    
Date: 2 Nov 1981 06:17:59-PST
From: chico!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
To: OTA@S1-A
Subject: Re:  Dial-a-Shuttle

That's not what I meant.  There's going to be a 900 number one can call
to listen in on ground-spacecraft communications.

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

Date:  2 Nov 1981 at 1328-PST
From: Andrew Knutsen <knutsen@SRI-UNIX>
To: space at MC
Subject: shuttle news
Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX

	There is shuttle news available in SHUT.NS[1,ALK] at SAIL. This
file is deleted every evening at 10pm PST.

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

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

04-Nov-81  0403	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #27   
Date: 04 Nov 1981 0402-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #27
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 27

Today's Topics:
			  Shuttle tiles, camera
				Correction
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 November 1981 21:58-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle tiles, camera
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

This flight of the Columbia we won't have to worry about the tiles
like we did the first flight. There's a camera on the boom that
maneuvers payloads into position, and it can simply maneuver itself
around to look at the underside of the shuttle with the camera.
Thus EVA is needed only if a problem is actually found, not to just take
a close look at potential problems.  (Recall, last flight in April, the
only pictures of the underside of the shuttle were from a secret ground-
based military spy camera, which I would think would be inferior to
on-site inspection by the boom camera.)

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

Date:  3 Nov 1981 2254-PST
From: Imsss at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: Correction
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC

(This is actually REM -- MIT-* and SU-AI are all down.)
Correction, the pictures of underside of shuttle in April were
from a secret spy satellite, not a ground-based camera.
-------

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

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

05-Nov-81  1002	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #28   
Date: 05 Nov 1981 0402-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #28
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 28

Today's Topics:
			  TV coverage of Shuttle
			   SPACE Digest V2 #27
			       shuttle news
			      Missing Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 November 1981 0152-PST (Wednesday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: TV coverage of Shuttle
To: SPACE at AI

By the way, for future reference, the best television coverage of 
shuttle activities, BY FAR, is by Turner's CABLE NEWS NETWORK.
They began continuous coverage at around 10PM PST Tuesday evening,
with two commentators and a reasonable NASA technical person.  
They also have this nice habit of SHUTTING UP when interesting things
are going on -- frequently they hook you into the main information
feed announcements for minutes at a time... normally the commercial
TV networks only hook in for "special" announcements, not the continuous
feed for the press.

If you have access to CNN, punt the networks and stick with Ted Turner
on this one.

(Very few commercials, too!)

--Lauren--

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

Date: 4 November 1981 11:18-EST
From: Christopher C. Stacy <CStacy at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #27
To: REM at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Actually, a camera to look at the tiles would not be too useful for
the problem which was encountered in the previous flight.  The reason
the tiles came off last time was structural damage done to the shuttle
body by a powerful shock wave.  This happened during trhe shuttle's
ascent.

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

Date:  4 Nov 1981 1442-EST
From: S. W. Galley <SWG at MIT-XX>
Subject: shuttle news
To: Knutsen at SRI-UNIX
cc: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 3-Nov-81 0703-EST

Very nice, but is there a more permanent collection on-line anywhere?
-------

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

Date:  5 November 1981 01:21 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Missing Digest
To:  Space at MIT-MC

I'm one of the people who didn't get #23. Please resend this.
			Paul

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

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

06-Nov-81  0404	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #29   
Date: 06 Nov 1981 0402-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #29
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:
			    Shuttle technology
       Clipping Service - Pick your Future in the Second Space Race
			  "America to the Moon"
		     Occluding a star to see a planet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  5 Nov 1981 1248-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Shuttle technology
To: space at MIT-MC

	These primitive Earthlings.... forgetting that the oil needs to
be changed every 200,000 miles! NEVER believe the mileage claims from
manufacturers - they all want you to believe you can get to Alpha 
Centauri using 10% less antimatter if you use their hyperdrive
lubricant!
-------

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

Date:  6 November 1981 02:21 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Clipping Service - Pick your Future in the Second Space Race
To:  Space at MIT-MC

[This is an excerpt from the lead article in the November 1981 issue
of Reason, a conservative political magazine. The issue discusses the
issues of private space operations. This article is written by James
C. Bennett]

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

...

    Consider two scenarios. Both start in the present and diverge
from decisions that are only slightly different in their initial
reasonableness but are very different in their long-term
consequences. Although both scenarios are projections, they are not
fantasy -- the actors, issues, and possibilities all have some basis
in what has happened to date. Which one will be reality and which one
will remain fiction?


Flourish...
===========

    In 1983 the Reagan administration wins a congressional vote on
its plan to "privatize" NASA's Space Transportation System by 1987.
United Airlines and Boeing announce a joint venture to form United
Spacelines. They state their willingness to assume responsibility for
many of NASA's existing commercial space contracts and obligations
and to operated selected NASA facilities for profit.

    A few years later, MATCO, a consortium of Fortune-500
manufacturing firms, contracts with the newly formed United
Spacelines Corporation to purchase three shuttle external tanks, on
orbit. United Spacelines has created a lucrative market for such
tanks by deciding to lift them all the way to orbit rather than
throwing them away as earlier NASA Shuttle launches had. MATCO
announces it will use the external tanks as structures for a
commercial, manned orbital research facility, intended to begin
operations in 1988.

    In 1990, with the space station ready for business, MATCO
announces that the contract to transport personnel has been awarded
to United Spacelines, as expected. However, it surprises many by
awarding the contract to transport bulk cargo to a "dark horse"
company, Space Truck, Inc. "Space Truck quoted us a lower price, and
we think they can do the job," explains a MATCO executive.

    In 1993, an independant contractor leasing space from MATCO at
one of its orbital stations uses a zero-gravity, containerless
processing technique to develop a significant advance in
semiconductor technology. She sells her invention to a leading
semiconductor firm ... and retires for life at the age of 27.

    Subsequently, National Telecom, the second-largest US
telecommunications company, announces that its next communication
satellites will be launched by Inter-Spatial Transport, Inc.'s "Heavy
Lift" rocket. Representatives of Nippon Rocket, the other major
contender, admit that ISTI's new cost-saving innovations have left
them "surprised ... and working hard to catch up."

    By the year 2000, Space Truck-Boeing Corporation unveils its
newest model space launcher, promoting it as, "not just another
breakthrough in reliable low-cost space transportation, but \the/
breakthrough." At the significantly lower cost of transport to orbit,
solar power satellites will finaly become profitable mechanisms for
producing energy to suit Earth's needs. "Looking back," says an STB
spokesman, "it's a good thing this industry has been lean and
competitive for so many years. Otherwise space travel would still be
an expensive luxury, not an everyday occurrence."

    An enchanting vision! But just assume that the first decision had
been made a little differently...


 ... or flounder?
 ================

    In 1983, the Reagan administration agrees to grant NASA
regulatory authority over space operations, including private
activities. "They \are/ the space experts," says one administration
spokesman. At NASA, a high-level official promises that private firms
will not be treated as rivals, but as allies in the opening of the
space frontier. A few years later, backers of Space Truck, Inc.,
announce that they can no longer support their attempt to start a
private launch service. "After waiting three years to get
certification for our vehicle, approval is still not even in sight.
We can't afford to wait any longer." With the bankruptcy of Space
Truck, serious efforts by private American firms to enter the space
transportation business cease.

    In 1987, federal budget cutters force NASA to shelve its space
operations center project "because it is an immense burden on American
taxpayers." Components already orbited are turned over to the Air
Force for use at its restricted surveillance space station.

    A few years later, a European-Japanese joint venture in
semiconductor production announces its discovery of a remarkable
technical advance at its research space station.

    In 1995, in a major policy speach in San Jose, California, the
president announces that no new follow-on to the Space Shuttle will
be funded. "In hard times like these, we just cannot afford luxuries
like advanced space transportation systems. Our first priority must
be taking care of our unemployment problems in seriously depressed
areas such as Detriot, and, of course, Sunnyvale."

    The turn of the century passes quietly in America. An American
historian reads a paper at the annual meeting of the American
Economic Association. His topic: "Private American Space Companies:
Could They Ever Have Successfully Competed with State-Financed
Corporations of Europe and Japan?" His talk is almost as well
received as the previous one, "Lessons from Lysander Spooner's
Attempt to Compete with the US Post Office."

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

[The entire article is too long to transcribe. Those interested in
the topic should be able to find the issue without too much trouble.
I intend to transcribe one of the sidebars, but that will have to
wait until another day.

			Paul 	]

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

Date: 6 November 1981 02:27-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: "America to the Moon"
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

There's a rather nice series on PBS currently called "America to the Moon".
Each half-hour episode is a review of one of the Apollo missions.
Last week was Apollo 11 (Neil Armstrong: "One small leap for a man,
  one giant leap for mankind") and tonite was Apollo 12 (landing within
  600 feet of a Surveyor, "That was one big step for me, even if it
  was a small one for Neil" <appx quote>).
They have the highlights of footage from launch to splashdown, plus
 overview explaining what the main mission was and what good info
 was obtained.  For example, this time they told how Apollo 11 had found
 its maria to be 3.8 E9 years old while Apollo 12 landing in just about
 the newest maris found it to be 3.2 E9 years old, thus indicating that
 all major activity on the Moon stopped about 3 E9 years ago, so that
 what we find there is a record of bombardment for 3 E9 years not
 erased by geologic upheavals and climate like on Earth.
Here in SF bay area it's on KQED (9) Thursday 22:30 PST.

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

Date: 6 November 1981 02:54-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Occluding a star to see a planet
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

In the COSMOS episode about Ionian experiments and Pythagorean dogma,
Carl Sagan suggests one spaceship holding up a disk to block out
thelight of a star while another spacecraft looks aside the disk
to see if a planet is visible.  I think this would be a wonderful
experiment to do for nearby stars such as Sirius and Barnard's star.
How soon will this experiment be feasible?  5 years??

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

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

08-Nov-81  0405	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #30   
Date: 08 Nov 1981 0402-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #30
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 30

Today's Topics:
			      Administrivia
		    Bibliography on Space Colonization
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 1981 22:31-PST
To: SPACE-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
From: The Moderator <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Administrivia

I have been having a lot of trouble getting SPACE Digests out recently.
I get the feeling I am in a golf course that is 85% sand traps and all I
have is a driver!  It looks like substantial numbers of people did not get
digest #26 or #28.  Handling the requests for #23 was a major pain in
the ass.  So rather than have people send me 35 requests for assorted back
issues, I will just send out a redundant copy too all hosts which I suspect
were left out.  But I think I will wait to for the hardware problems that
have been at the root of the problem to clear up first.  Thanks for
putting up with this difficulty.
	Ted Anderson

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

Date: 5 Nov 1981 20:19:38-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley
Subject: Bibliography on Space Colonization

The following is a  short  bibliography	 on  space  colonization,
which is timely	because	of the upcoming	Shuttle	launch.


		      Selected Bibliography


		       Non-Technical Works

``Colonies in Space.''	Time, June 3, 1974, p. 51.A brief summary
of the facts.

``Colonies in Space.''	Ron Chernow.  The  Smithsonian,	 February
1976,  pp.  62-69.  An interesting speculative article describing
the quality of life in a space colony.

The High Frontier:  Human Colonies in Space.  Gerard K.	 O'Neill.
1977.	The  landmark  book  on	the colonization of space, by the
principal worker in the	field.	Phi Beta Kappa Award for  Science
Book  of  the Year.  Builds a strong case for why space	should be
colonized.

  Hardbound 288pp., $8.00 from:	[I have seen a version of this in
  William Morrow and Co., Inc.	 paper back for 2.95 or so.  I
  Wilmer Warehouse		 don't have the ref tho. -ota]
  6 Henderson Dr.
  West Caldwell, NJ 07006

Colonies in Space.  T. A. Heppenheimer.	 1977.	Less cautious  in
tone  than  O'Neill's  book,  this volume develops the methods by
which space will be colonized.	A lively, well-illustrated work.

  Hardbound 224pp., $12.95 from:  Paperbound 321pp., $2.50 from:
  Stackpole Books		  Warner Books
  Cameron and Kelker Streets	  Warner Paperback Library
  P. O.	Box 1831		  75 Rockefeller Plaza
  Harrisburg, PA 17105		  New York, NY 10019

Spaceships of the Mind.	 Nigel Calder.	1978.	This  beautifully
illustrated  volume  is	 the  result  of  a BBC	television series
broadcast in 1978.  It is an overview of  space	 exploration,  as
well  as of the	specifics of space colonization, from the present
concepts to those of the far future.

  Hardbound 144pp., $14.95 from:  Paperbound 144pp., $6.95 from:
  The Viking Press		  Penguin Books, Inc.
  625 Madison Avenue		  625 Madison Avenue
  New York, NY 10022		  New York, NY 10022

Doomsday Has Been Cancelled.  J. Peter Vajk.  1978.  An	 in-depth
evaluation  of the basis for movement into space marks this work.
It reviews benefits to the Earth and changes in	the state of  so-
ciety which will result	from the utilization of	space.

  Paperbound 238pp., $7.95 from:
  Peace	Press, Inc.
  3828 Willat Avenue
  Culver City, CA 90230

The L-5	News.  The publication of the L-5  Society,  an	 interna-
tional	organization  actively advocating space	development.  The
L-5 Society also has available many reprints; a	 listing  may  be
obtained on request.  Subscriptions to The L-5 News:

  $12/year from:
  The L-5 Society
  1060 E. Elm
  Tucson, AZ  85719


			 Technical Works


``The Colonization of Space.''	G. K.  O'Neill.	  Physics  Today.
September  1974,  pp.  32-40.	A  survey  of the basic	order-of-
magnitude results which	first indicated	the feasibility	of  space
colonization.

``The Low-Profile  Road	 to  Space  Industrialization.''   G.  K.
O'Neill.   Astronautics	 and  Aeronautics,  March 1978,	pp.24-32.
Updated	results	on optimization	of space industrialization,  from
the 1976 and 1977 NASA Ames Summer Studies on space settlement.

Space Settlements-A Design Study (NASA SP-413).	  R.  D.  Johnson
and  C.	 Holbrow, eds.	1977.  A summary of the	1975 Summer Study
on the Settlement of Space at  the  NASA  Ames	research  center.
Though	lacking	in some	conceptual advances which reduce the cost
of space industrialization by an order of magnitude (see  biblio-
graphic	entries	below and immediately preceding), it does provide
an excellent introduction to the technical requirements	of  space
colonies.

  185pp., $5.00	postpaid from:
  Superintendent of Documents
  U. S.	Government Printing Office
  Washington, DC 20402
  Specify stock	no. 033-000-00669-1.

Progress in Astronautics  and  Aeronautics  v.	57:   Space-based
Manufacturing  from  Nonterrestrial Materials.	G. K. O'Neill and
B. T. O'Leary, eds.  1977.  Contains papers from  the  1976  NASA
Ames/OAST  Summer  Study  on concepts required to initiate large-
scale manufacturing in space, using  materials	found  in  space.
Also  presented	were papers taking a systems-analysis approach to
space industrialization	concepts.   Was	subject	to peer	review.

  177pp., $23.00 from:
  American Institute of	Aeronautics and	Astronautics
  Technical Information	Service
  750 Third Avenue
  New York, NY 10017

Space Resources	 and  Space  Settlement	 (NASA	SP-428).   G.  K.
O'Neill	and J. Billingham, eds.	 1979.	Summarizes 1977	NASA Ames
summer study on	space development.  Technical results  on  regen-
erative	life-support systems, utilization of lunar resources, and
electromagnetic	mass-drivers, among  other  topics.   Subject  to
peer review.

  288 pp., $6.50 from:
  Superintendent of Documents
  U. S.	Government Printing Office
  Washington, DC 20402
  Specify stock	no. 033-000-00765-5

``Habitat and Logistic Support Requirements for	the Initiation of
a  Space Manufacturing Enterprise.''  J. P. Vajk, G. H.	Engel, J.
A. Shettler, in	Space Resources	and Space Settlement.  1979.  pp.
61-83.	Details	of a step-by-step approach to setting up manufac-
turing facilities in space, using only the Space Shuttle.  Demon-
strates	 that  construction of solar power satellites could begin
only seven years after the first launch	of equipment from  Earth.
Launch could begin in 1985.

``Mass Driver Up-Date.''  H.  Kolm.   The  L-5	News.	September
1980, pp. 10-12.  Details on electromagnetic-driven launchers now
being studied by a team	at MIT and Princeton, designed to  launch
cylindrical  projectiles  from	the Earth, at $1.00 to $20.00 per
pound.	The projectiles	are accelerated	to Earth  orbit	 velocity
or  beyond in wells in the Earth, then launched	through	the atmo-
sphere,	where they lose	only 3%	mass to	ablation.

Space Colonization-An Annotated	Bibliography.  Michael E.  Marot-
ta.   1980.   Includes	an introductory	essay.	More than 100 en-
tries, both technical and non-technical.

  31pp., $4.00 from:
  Loompanics Unlimited
  P. O.	Box 264
  Mason, MI 48854

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

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

11-Nov-81  0308	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #31   
Date: 11 Nov 1981 0307-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #31
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 31

Today's Topics:
			   Yet another scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 1981 12:26:22-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley
Subject: Yet another scenario

Consider the following scenario:

	NASA decides to turn shuttle operations over to a private firm,
	McDouglas Aircraft, even though the bids are unexpectedly
	high.  The program limps along for two years, getting a fair
	amount of foregin business, but with McDouglas constantly
	asking for even more money.  They claim to be developing an
	even better booster with engines made by another company.  The
	engines are delayed, and the resulting losses drives McDouglas
	to bankruptcy.  They appeal for government loan guarantees,
	citing the importance of the shuttle to the country.  During
	Congressional hearings, it turns out that they won the original
	contract by engaging in bid-rigging, and most of their foreign
	business came from paying off government officials.  In the
	meantime, a private firm is testing a new competitive fuel
	technology; unfortunately, there is a malfunction and an
	explosion.  The town they're located in is severely damaged,
	and several residents are killed by the fumes.  McDouglas's
	other competitor has developed a reasonable booster, but most
	of their funding has come from Libya.  The effect of all these
	problems is a tremendous public outcry, resulting in a halt to
	most space-related projects in the U.S.

Unlikely?  I submit it's no more unlikely than the previous scenarios,
and every incident I've mentioned is drawn directly from something
that has happened in the aerospace industry recently.  Let's move the
rest of this discussion to POLI-SCI where it belongs.

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

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

12-Nov-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #32   
Date: 12 Nov 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #32
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 32

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #31
	       Television coverage of the Shuttle Columbia
	       Television coverage of the Shuttle Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 1981 12:49:57-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley

The following summary of NASA Shuttle charges is based on internal figures
as of October 1981.

Until 1986, the use of a full Space Shuttle bay, including launch costs,
for one day, will be about $40 million, plus or minus 5 million.  Additional
days are extra.  Beginning in 1986, NASA will charge $52 million for this
service, with the true cost now estimated at $62 million.  (All figures
are in 1986 dollars, which are 2.7x greater than 1975 dollars.)

This table shows costs for the Shuttle version of a mission compared
to what it could have cost if NASA had built a new expendable vehicle
called the ELV.  It is probably good until a year or two after 1986.


Mission Class           Vehicle           Cost (million$)


Delta                   Shuttle           26
                        ELV               38

Atlas-Centaur           Shuttle           71 (or 42 if Shuttle optimized
                                              for this mission class)
                        ELV               69


Titan                   Shuttle          150 (includes use of IUS)
                        ELV              164 (if 4 launched per year)
                        ELV              230 (if 2 launched per year)


Note that the ELV would always have been cheaper for Titan class missions.
Also, the Ariane can launch payloads that the Shuttle needs the IUS for.

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

Date: 11 Nov 1981 1742-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #31
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: KATZ at USC-ISIF
In-Reply-To: Your message of 11-Nov-81 0307-PST

What??? Whether or not the Shuttle will be run by a private company doesn't
belong in SPACE but in POLI-SCI??  I missed something.  


					Alan
-------

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

Date: 12 Nov 1981 0036-EST
From: ELF at MIT-DMS (Eric L. Flanzbaum)
Reply-to: ELF at MIT-DMS
To: Space at MIT-MC
Subject: Television coverage of the Shuttle Columbia
Message-id: <[MIT-DMS].215213>


Just for the record ...

	While watching Television tonight (11/11) (channel 4)
	during a staion break the following was said:

	"Your station to watch for the coverage of the Space
	 Shuttle Columbia . . . . . . . whenever that may be"

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

Date: 12 Nov 1981 0036-EST
From: ELF at MIT-DMS (Eric L. Flanzbaum)
Reply-to: ELF at MIT-DMS
To: Space at MIT-MC
Subject: Television coverage of the Shuttle Columbia
Message-id: <[MIT-DMS].215213>

Notes:

Oh yes, just following the station break was a news-cast about
the delay in the shuttle launch.


Message:


Just for the record ...

	While watching Television tonight (11/11) (channel 4)
	during a staion break the following was said:

	"Your station to watch for the coverage of the Space
	 Shuttle Columbia . . . . . . . whenever that may be"

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

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

13-Nov-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #33   
Date: 13 Nov 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #33
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 33

Today's Topics:
	   Clipping Service - Alternative presents in Aviation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  11 November 1981 21:54 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Clipping Service - Alternative presents in Aviation
To:  Space at MIT-AI, Poli-Sci at MIT-AI


[This item is an excerpt from the November 1981 issue of Reason, a
conservative political journal. It is a sidebar to an article on
goverment vs. private means of developing industry in space. Poli-Sci
is getting a copy because the recent discussion has been on
govermental vs. private means of doing all sorts of things. This item
may be considered a fantasy. Then again...]

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

Imagine...

    Dawn is breaking over the plains of Kansas, a glorious spring
morning in 1982. The rising sun gilds a few clouds in an otherwise
clear sky. In a backyard behind an old, weatherbeaten Midwestern
farmhouse is an incongruous scene: a cluster of modern trailers, with
cables running in all directions, and a large crowd of doers and
onlookers, engineers, reporters, and cameramen. One of the network
reporters is conducting an interview with an older man, clearly by
dress and demeanor a Senior Official.

Reporter Intro: Good morning, Americans.  We are here in Owl's Eye,
  Kansas, to witness another chapter in the forward march of science
  and technology, the controversial and long-awaited "next step" in
  America's costly and exciting conquest of the air.  Today, finally,
  if all goes well, we will see the National Air Administration's
  controversial Sky Shuttle aircraft perform its first applications
  mission as part of NAA's "Skydust" program, in which the mammoth
  aircraft will swoop down over the fields of farmer Ed Shultz and
  spray them with pesticides.  With us today is NAA's deputy
  director, Buzz Wingnut, who will be answering some of the tough
  questions which have come up about NAA and the Sky Shuttle.

    Buzz, what are the chances of success of today's mission?

Official: Well, Jules, all the indications are good.  The weather is
  right, the aircraft, aside from a few minor problems, is in good
  condition, and the crew is in excellent spirits.  It sure looks
  like we have a "go".

Reporter: What about the rotor problems? Everybody knows that the
  rotors have been giving you trouble ever since the start of the Sky
  Shuttle program. Critics have charged that there is still a serious
  chance they'll fall off.
  
Official: I can assure you that the rotors will not fall off this
  time. The rotor problem has definately been solved.
  
Reporter: Some critics have questioned the whole idea of having a set
  of rotors on an airplane, saying that the idea of an aircraft that
  can take off vertically \and/ fly 10,000 miles at supersonic speeds
  is unnecessarily complicated. Could these missions be better
  performed by separate aircraft?
  
Official: Jules, this kind of talk puts our entire technology
  development system in question. I might point out that each of
  those requirements you mentioned, as well as others -- such as the
  ability to land on both land and water, the ability to perform
  aerobatic maneuvers, and the ability to fly at treetop level --
  were inputted to NAA by responsible sectors of the government.
  There is no doubt that each of these capabilities is needed by the
  nation's aviation-using sector.
  
  As for the idea of developing a separate aircraft for passenger,
  cargo, defense, and scientific purposes, such talk is the height of
  irresponsibility. What with the cost overruns and time delays which
  were unavoidably encountered by the Sky Shuttle program, there is
  no chance of getting Congress to appropriate funds for development
  of a new aircraft in this decade.
  
Reporter:  Buzz, Senator Buttermore has been highly critical of both
  the Sky Shuttle program in general and the Skydust experimental
  program in particular. He has said, and I quote, "The Skydust
  program has been an enormous boondoggle from the beginning. It is
  mearly an excuse by the NAA administrators to find new 'needs' for
  their services. Ask any farmer -- the idea of spraying chemicals on
  crops from the air as a part of day-to-day agriculture is
  inherently absurd. Both as a Senator and a taxpayer, I say, 'Not a
  penny for this nutty fantasy!'" How do you respond to that, Buzz?
  
Official: Well, all I can say is that I am glad Queen Isabella didn't
  take this attitude toward Christopher Columbus. "Crop-dusting", as
  our boys like to call it, is an extremely promising technique, and
  one which today's demonstration will prove technologically
  feasible. The Sky Shuttle will reduce the cost of aerial
  application from $500,000 per acre to only $100,000 per acre. I can
  confidently predict that, given Congress's continued support of
  development funding, hundreds, maybe even thousands, of American
  farmers will enjoy the benefits of "crop-dusting" by the year 2000.
  
Reporter: There have been some voices, so far a distinct minority,
  who have called for private operation of the aircraft program in
  this country, saying that private operators could do the job more
  efficiently. Could you say a few words on that, Buzz?
  
Official: Well, Jules, it's hardly worth my time to answer that one,
  don't you think? The Sky Shuttle has cost nearly $100 billion
  dollars to develop. Where could a private firm raise that kind of
  capital? We at NAA have always valued the contributions of private
  industry -- we feel that the free-enterprise qualities of our
  contractors demonstrate exactly the kind of government-industry
  partnership it takes to maintain America's leadership in high
  technology. But romantic notions of competing "airlines" operating
  passenger and freight operations across the continent as if they
  were railroads -- that belongs in the 19th century. Aviation in
  America has been in sound hands ever since Congress suppressed
  dangerous cranks like the Wright brothers and created the
  predecessors of the NAA to give American wings, and let us pray to
  God it remains that way, Jules. I'm going to have to cut this
  short. The count-down is entering the final stage.
  
Reporter: Well, thank you, Buzz and Godspeed. It's a great day to be
  an American.

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

[ Just as a trivia item: the current cost for crop-dusting is under
$10/acre, plus cost of chemicals. ]

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

Date: 12 Nov 1981 12:35:21-PST
From: E.jeffc at Berkeley
To: v.space@Berkeley

The reason why the discussion on private ownership of the space
shuttle should be moved to poli-sci is because of the raging
Libertarian battle that is going on there, and some references
to space have already been made there.

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

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

14-Nov-81  0302	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #34   
Date: 14 Nov 1981 0301-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #34
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 34

Today's Topics:
			  Privitization of space
		    private vs. public in SPACE Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 1981 1003-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Privitization of space
To: space at MIT-MC

	The discussion about private business getting into the space
business in a serious way DOES belong here, because it falls into the
scope of SPACE digest (I feel), and there hasn't been much traffic on
this list recently anyway (things need to be livened up around here).

        To wit:

        While opening space to non-governmental use has potential
dangers, (one can see cost-cutting on safety hardware for a priviate
shuttle, leading to a launch pad explosion or reentry burnup), leaving
it exclusivly in the hands of the government (especially the military)
makes it a political hostage.

        Let me advance another scenario that can happen if the
bureaucratic hold on space is not broken:

        1983 - Furthur budget cuts for NASA cause cancellation of fourth
               Shuttle orbiter. Funds for completion of Discovery (the
               third orbiter) are in doubt. The Air Force steps in and
               pays for the third and fourth orbiters. Congress readily
               approves this "national defense" expenditure.

        1984 - Increased doubts about Shuttle availability and
               reliability (due to trimmed operational funds) lead
               potential customers to use expendable vechiles instead
               (Ariadane for example), cutting income from cargo loads.

        1985 - The Congress wonders why the Shuttle is in such red ink
               and declares "The taxpayers of America cannot afford to 
               subsidize this money-losing boondoggle". NASA gives some 
               under-booked shuttle flights to the Air Force.

        1987 - Shuttle use has fully replaced expendable rockets for the
               military. Since the military is continually launching new
               spy satellites, plus testing particle-beam weapons,
               Vandenberg AFB is keeping busy while Cape Canerveral is 
               winding down.

        1988 - The Shuttle is declared "too vital for national defense
               to be used for other things", since the military now
               leans heavily on it (and they have the bucks to
               do so), so NASA is reduced to buying cargo bay space from
               the Air Force to do science.

        I admit for this pessimistic scenario to take place, a lot of
things have to go wrong in the next year or two. I neither expect nor
desire these things to happen. However, if space remains, as it is now,
exclusively in the hands of the government, this CAN happen, and there
will be no failsafe against it.

        A solution is to open up space to private speculation (with
proper licensing and [gasp] regulations). In the interim, the money for
the R&D must continue to flow from the taxpayers to build the basic
technology for space industrialization (the Shuttle).

        Alright, folks.... let's see those brickbats fly!
-------

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

Date: 13 Nov 1981 10:25:22-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley
Subject: private vs. public in SPACE Digest

The reason I originally objected to this appearing in space is that
it's not a question about the space program, it's about the free
market vs. government ownership, and the author just happened to pick
the space program as an example.  No new facts about the space program
or NASA were presented, just the standard arguments.  Even if we weren't
discussing this very topic on POLI-SCI -- and we are -- that would
still be a more appropriate forum.  The subset of the discussion belonging
here is that pertaining to specific examples, such as the two or three
private firms building rockets (including one American firm -- their
first test was about as successful as the early Vanguard tests).

		--Steve

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

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

17-Nov-81  0302	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #35   
Date: 17 Nov 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #35
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 35

Today's Topics:
		      Let the Truth be known....   
			      Another poll  
		     News coverage of shuttle flight
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 1981 1032-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Let the Truth be known....   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I heard a fellow from the Flat Earth Society on the radio this
morning, talking about the second shuttle flight.  He claims the
following:

	- Columbia was launched, alright, but landed in the ocean,
	and was recovered shortly after launch.

	- It could not have orbited the Earth, (which is, of course,
	flat) and thus those spectacular pictures from the on-board
	cameras were produced (as were all the other space pictures) in
	a special effects studio.

	- Columbia was dried off, and flown to the Mojave desert, where
	it was dropped from the 747 (he believes in them, I guess) and
	glided to a landing at Edwards.

	- The money spent on the space program is all going to Florida,
	which we know is the headquarters for quite a bit of drug
	traffic and organized crime.  This is, of course, being subsidized
	by NASA, since it cannot possibly have used that money to
	build space vehicles.

Having now been told the Truth, I trust that all the readers of SPACE
Digest will cancel their subscriptions and devote their energies toward
the important things that can be done here on Earth, such as repealing
the Laws of Physics, and making Pi equal to 3.00000.....

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

Date: 16 Nov 1981 1212-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Another poll  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a266  1857  13 Nov 81
AM-Poll Facts,530
With AM-Space Poll
    NEW YORK (AP) - Telephone interviews with 1,598 adults across the
country Oct. 25-26 were the basis for the Associated Press-NBC News
poll on the U.S. space program.
    Telephone numbers were selected for the survey in such a way as to
give every household a roughly equal chance of being chosen. The
sample was drawn in order to reflect accurately the makeup of the
country by region and by city size. A procedure was used to give a
proper balance of men and women in the sample.
    As with all sample surveys, the results of AP-NBC News polls can
vary from the opinion of all Americans because of chance variations in
the sample.
    For a poll based on about 1,600 interviews, the results are subject
to an error margin of 3 percentage points either way because of
chance variations. That is, if one could have talked this past week to
all Americans with telephones, there is only 1 chance in 20 that the
findings would vary by more than 3 percentage points.
    Of course, the results could differ from other polls for a number of
reasons. Differences in the exact wording of questions, differences
in when the interviews were conducted and different methods of
interviewing could also cause variations.
    Here are some of the questions and the results from the AP-NBC News
poll:
    1. Do you think the space shuttle program is a good investment for
this country, or don't you think so?
    Yes - 60 percent.
    No - 30 percent.
    Not sure - 10 percent.
    2. Should the emphasis of the U.S. space program be primarily on
national defense or on scientific exploration?
    Defense - 43 percent.
    Science - 40 percent.
    Both - 9 percent.
    Not sure - 8 percent.
    3. Do you think the United States should keep its space program
separate from other countries, or should the U.S. engage in joint
space ventures with other nations? Would you favor a joint space
program between the United States and the Soviet Union?
    Separate - 46 percent.
    With U.S.S.R. - 32 percent.
    With other countries, but not U.S.S.R. - 15 percent.
    Not sure - 7 percent.
    4. Do you think people from Earth will eventually colonize the moon
or other planets, or don't you think so?
    Yes - 42 percent.
    No - 49 percent.
    Not sure - 9 percent.
    
ap-ny-11-13 2155EST
***************

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

Date: 16 November 1981 15:23-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Sender: ___103 at MIT-MC
Subject: News coverage of shuttle flight
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

According to the noon news today on channel 5 (KPIX), the landing of the
shuttle was deliberately made more difficult the second time to test it more
fully. I recall they were going to land cross-wind, but changed their mind
because the wind was too strong and landed into the wind just like the first
time. They let the computer fly the ship during some of the descent, and they
tested the full range of aerodynamic handling during re-entry, but I don't
recall anything about the landing that was actually made more difficult than
the first time. Is there anything I missed? Or did KPIX get sloppy and refer to
the re-entry as if it were the landing? Or did KPIX forget the cross-wind
landing had been cancelled?

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

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

18-Nov-81  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #36   
Date: 18 Nov 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #36
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 36

Today's Topics:
		   What they did during shuttle reentry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 1981 0702-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: What they did during shuttle reentry
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, rem at MIT-MC
cc: DIETZ at USC-ECL
In-Reply-To: Your message of 17-Nov-81 0302-PST

They were planning to perturb the shuttle during the hypersonic part of
its reentry to test its stability.

The landing was great! (Kind of cold and dusty, though).

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

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

19-Nov-81  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #37   
Date: 19 Nov 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #37
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 37

Today's Topics:
		       where the discussion belongs
	       Private Enterprise (er.. I mean Columbia)   
			 STS-2 landing maneuvers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 1981 04:51:36-PST
From: decvax!pur-ee!davy at Berkeley
To: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: where the discussion belongs
Cc: decvax!pur-ee!davy@Berkeley, decvax!pur-ee!gugel@Berkeley

	Well, here's my two cents worth:

	I would have to disagree with Steve (smb), and say that this 
discussion about the shuttle belongs HERE, not in POLI-SCI.  While it
is true that this discussion pertains to free enterprise -vs- the gov-
ernment, I think there'smore to it than that:  For example, how would
space travel, colonization, exploration, etc. be affected differently
if private enterprise were to take over (or compete against) the 
govm'ts current (future) program?

	I submit the following "suppose" about the future:

	Let's assume that it's a few years from now, and there have 
been some "colonies" set up in space.  Just for fun, let's say there
are two on the moon, one on each side; and three space stations.  The
space stations can be whatever you want, say big power-supply things, 
food-supplies, etc.
	We're going to need some method of getting from here to there:
if we work at a space station, we have to go from "home" to "work"; if
we have relatives, we have to get from one side of the moon to the 
other, and every once in a while it might be nice to visit good old 
Earth.  As far as from one side of the moon to the other goes, I guess
we could set up "Amtrack II" (ugh), but that just won't work for getting
down here from up there.  That leaves the shuttle as the only really   
practical method (because it is re-usable, mostly) of transportation.
	Now, who should supply this shuttle service?  The government,
or private enterprise?  Well, look at the benefits/drawbacks:

	If the government runs the program, what do we get?  Well,
	service-men and government employess could probably get
	reduced-fares, along with scientists having "easy" routes
	to send their stuff into space.  Also, the military has 
	easy access to it, thus enabling them to deploy their 
	MX missiles, etc. at will.  As you may have noticed, I 
	haven't mentioned the every-day John Q. Public type of
	traveller yet.  Where does his "deal" come in?  In my
	opinion, it probably doesn't come in at all.

	Now, if free-enterprise takes over (or at least jumps in),
	then what do we get?  Eventually, there will probably be
	quite a bit of competition, with "no frills" flights (you
	have to carry on your own space suit or something), reduced
	rates, more departures, travel packages (see Disneycrater --
	three days, two nights -- $600,000).  John Q. Public would 
	be benefiting more from what his government "discovered" if
	his government didn't run the program.

>From reading POLI-SCI (I don't usually), it doesn't seem to me that 
this is the same sort of discussion, although perhaps there are 
certain aspects of it that relate to POLI-SCI.  Hopefully, we'll 
keep the discussion here, as I think that it could become a very 
interesting topic, once people start taking it a little further toward
what COULD happen, rather than what it looks like now.

--Dave Curry
  (decvax!pur-ee!davy)

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

Date: 18 Nov 1981 0939-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Private Enterprise (er.. I mean Columbia)   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a059  0445  18 Nov 81
PM-Shuttle Buy,480
Private Investors Trying To Buy Space Shuttle
    PRINCETON, N.J. (AP) - A group of private investors has approached
the Reagan administration to propose buying a space shuttle in what
would mark the beginning of major private-sector involvement in the
nation's space program, one person involved in the venture says.
    Officials at the Space Transportation Co. of Princeton, N.J., want
to buy a shuttle similar to the Columbia and rent it out to an
operator - either the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or
a private entity, the Dallas Morning News reported today.
    ''Essentially, there are a lot of people paying a lot of money for
satellites to do what a shuttle can do cheaper,'' said William H.
Sword Jr., who with his father is part of a Princeton investment firm
organizing the planned venture.
    ''We think private business will be able to handle all that future
business more efficiently than the government,'' the younger Sword
told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from his home in
Cranbury, N.J. today.
    ''Personally, I have for a long, long time felt that private
commitment of funds for space is the key to the success of the U.S.
space program,'' the Dallas newspaper quoted Dr. Klaus Heiss as
saying. He is guiding the company's effort to purchase a shuttle.
    The firm recently presented its proposal to the administration's
science adviser, George Keyworth, who heads a federal study on
long-range space policy, the News said.
    ''We think now, particularly in the current budget environment, that
private financing is a key symbol, and in fact, more than a symbol,
of space policy in the 1980s,'' said Heiss, who directed economic
studies from 1969 to 1971 leading to 5he original shuttle program.
    The shuttle purchase ''is feasible and we want to seriously, quietly
and diligently pursue whether ... the administration and the
aerospace community and the financial community can be persuaded that
indeed that is a viable option,'' he added.
    Government officials would not comment on the proposal, other than
to say discussions did take place between the company and members of
the government's office of science and techonology policy.
    ''It is a somewhat revolutionary idea,'' Heiss said. ''There are
many skeptics within the government and the aerospace community.''
    The Columbia, which completed a second mission Saturday, and four
other orbiters originally were planned by NASA. The Columbia is the
only finished orbiter, but NASA has contracts for three more, the last
scheduled for delivery in September 1984.
    The Space Transportation Co. wants to buy the fifth shuttle, the
newspaper said.
    A consultant with the Space Transportation Co. said the firm has a
minimum of $200 million in an escrow account, but Heiss would not
confirm or deny that. The Columbia cost more than $500 million.
    ''There's no doubt they can raise every nickel required,'' said
Gilbert Keyes, an official with Boeing Aerospace Co., who is familiar
with the firm's effort.
    
ap-ny-11-18 0746EST
***************

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

Date: 18 November, 1981 -- 1749 EST
From: Adam Buchsbaum <research!sjb at Berkeley>
In-reply-to: Robert Elton Mass <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: STS-2 landing maneuvers

The Columbia did indeed undergo some maneuvers once in
the atmosphere.  These included some turns and banks
and other maneuvers designed to test the handling of
the shuttle, hopefully to lead to a good landing routine
in bad weather.  The cross wind landing was aborted because
the winds got to be too strong, and NASA had to settle
for another head wind landing.  The computer handled most
of the maneuvers (if not all) until just before landing.
This was decided after the ship entered the atmosphere
and relayed to the astronauts through the statement, "You
are go for autoland."

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

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

20-Nov-81  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #38   
Date: 20 Nov 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #38
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 38

Today's Topics:
			space and free enterprise
		  The fictitious NAA and its Sky Shuttle
		    Bibliography on Space Colonization
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 1981 11:44:15-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: space and free enterprise

    The faith some people have in the free enterprise system (as it might
be applied to space) is truly touching. I don't see the slightest
likelihood of the current shuttle design ever being efficient enough to
support the kind of traveling that [davy] describes, although I'd be
happy to be proved wrong. Note that everyone who is currently and
seriously involved in private attempts to space is talking about satellites
(which, thanks to VLSI, have a very high performance/weight ratio
compared to the average human (outside of \very/ special talents))
rather than people.
   Would anyone care to speculate on what the cost/person would be to
LEO if the shuttle were outfitted in a maximum-seating capacity
(after all, the Sunday supplements have all been instructed to say it's
about the size of a DC-9) and how much it would cost to make this
happen in the first place?

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

Date: 19 Nov 1981 23:04:09-PST
From: E.jeffc at Berkeley
To: v.space@Berkeley
Subject: The fictitious NAA and its Sky Shuttle

     The NAA and its Sky Shuttle, obviously a reference to NASA and
the Space Shuttle, is not a valid analogy.  The reason is simple:
it is very easy to build a scale model of a bridge out of balsa
wood, but you must use a qualitatively different material when
building the real thing.  In case you didn't follow that, I'll
rephrase it:  scale is very important.

     There is a very real difference in scale between the fictic-
tious Sky Shuttle, an airplane, and the Space Shuttle, a space
ship.  An airplane is such a simple device, in its most primitive
form, that one can be built single-handedly with the resources
available to a single person.  Thus, the Wright brothers were able
to pioneer in the field without any financial backing.  The Space
Shuttle, on the other hand, is one of the most complex machines
ever built by man to date (even if it will look hopelessly primi-
tive some day in the future).

     The moral of the Sky Shuttle scenario is that space travel
would be better developed by tinkers working in their backyards,
or, more realistically, by major corporations.  However, the simple
fact is that the Space Shuttle is too complex a machine to be
/developed/ by any corporation existing today.  NO company has the
financial resources to plunge billions of dollars into something
that will take decades to pay itself off.  I am willing to concede,
however, that once space travel has been FIRMLY ESTABLISHED,
private enterprise will be running the space ships under the
equivalent of the airlines' air traffic control system, and I do
support NASA's plan to eventually sell its shuttles.

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

Date: 20 November 1981 05:15-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Bibliography on Space Colonization
To: A.exp at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

There is one other book on space colonies and uses of space left
out of the bibliography.

A Step Farther Out
by (ahem) J. E. Pournelle
Ace Books

is still in print and does say a few things on the subject.

Also, the report of the Citizens Advisory Council on National
Space Policy is available at $5.00 from the L-5 Society, 1620 E
Elm, Tucson AZ 85719; it contains a whack of a lot of
conclusions and data on a space plan for the US (produced at a
meeting in spring of 1981 attended by some 50 top space people;
written up by a bunch of science fiction writers working with
people like Thomas Paine and David Crisswell..

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

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

21-Nov-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #39   
Date: 21 Nov 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #39
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 39

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #38
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 1981 1308-CST
From: Kim Korner <CC.KORNER at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #38
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 20-Nov-81 0503-CST

	Does anyone have any information about the return path/schedule
of the shuttle? When last heard, it was supposed to pass through Austin.
		-Kim Korner
-------

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

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

24-Nov-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #40   
Date: 24 Nov 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #40
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 40

Today's Topics:
		STS-1 -- "The Bug Heard 'Round the World"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 1981 01:24:40-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley
Subject: STS-1 -- "The Bug Heard 'Round the World"

There's a very interesting article on just what delayed the launch of
STS-1 in the October 1981 issue of SOFTWARE ENGINEERING NOTES.  It's
written by John R. Garman, the deputy chief of the Spacecraft Software
Division at the Johnson Space Center.  I won't try to summarize the
article -- it's fairly complex, and describes how the 4 identically-
programmed computers and the backup computer with different software
co-exist.  But the origin of the bug is interesting.

The problem was caused when a time delay in an initialization
subroutine was changed to avoid problems during system
reconfigurations; this affected the system's idea of what the time of
day was, and hence caused affected scheduling of certain asynchronous
processes.  (Because all 4 computers must have *identical* ideas of
what time it is, they use the operating system's timer queue; hence,
any use of the timer before the other initialization code ran could
cause trouble.  The real TOD clock is used only during cold-starts of
the first computer.) The nature of this change was such that there was
only a 1 in 67 chance of a failure.

	"No 'mapping' analyzer built today could have found that
	linkage.  Testing might have.  But the window wasn't opened
	until late in the test program (relative to this code), and
	even then, *most* simulations didn't go through the expense of
	initializing 'from scratch'.  And even where they did, it would
	have to have been in a lab with a reasonably accurate model of
	the telemetry system *plus* a simulation or test involving both
	PASS [Primary Avionics Software System] *and* BFS [Backup
	Flight Control System], and it would still be fighting the low
	probability.  Even then, the temptation would be to try
	again....and never be able to repeat it; and never be sure it
	wasn't a 'funny' in the lab set-up.... or a similar problem
	fixed by another software change.  That, in fact, apparently
	did happen in one of the labs....about 4 months prior to the
	flight..

	"And then, on *the* day that the first GPC [General Purpose
	Computer] was turned on, 30 hours before scheduled launch, we
	hit the problem......"

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

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

25-Nov-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #41   
Date: 25 Nov 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #41
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 41

Today's Topics:
			       Solar Sails
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 1981 20:43:31-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley
Subject: Solar Sails

The November 21 issue of "Science News" has a fairly long (by its
standards) article on solar sails.  According to the article, the
Mariner 3 and 4 spacecraft were designed to use solar vanes to help
with attitude control; unfortunately, neither probe worked right.  But
light pressure was used to roll-stabilize the Mariner 10 in 1974 when
problems with the attitude-control system threatened to exhaust its
supply of steering gas.  Without "solar-sailing mode", it probably
could not have completed its Mercury flybys.

The World Space Foundation is designing and building prototype solar
sails; they hope to get a free launch on an Ariane or some other
vehicle, much as the OSCAR satellites have been launched.  The American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics even purchased a shuttle
"Getaway Special" for a sail, but NASA ruled it didn't qualify,
apparently because the specials could not be used to deploy structures
outside the shuttle.

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

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

26-Nov-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #42   
Date: 26 Nov 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #42
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 42

Today's Topics:
			 Re:  SPACE Digest V2 #40
			 COST OF SHUTTLE FLIGHTS
		    Please add me to the Mailing list
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 1981 11:45:49-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!bch at Berkeley
To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley
Subject: Re:  SPACE Digest V2 #40

Murphy lives!

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

Date: 25 Nov 1981 1238-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS at USC-ECL>
Subject: COST OF SHUTTLE FLIGHTS
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: tcs at USC-ECL

The most recent number I have heard for the marginal cost of a shuttle
flight is $50M, but I don't think this includes an adequate allowance for
the ground support. To round up for inflation, and to be generally
conservative, assume that the actual marginal cost to a private user would
be about $80M.

I have seen first cut designs for a passenger module for the shuttle that
would pack about 60 people in like sardines. In addition to being
technically doubtful, that kind of arrangement would significantly reduce
the market for some kinds of travel (vacation in particular). If you allow
a reasonable amount of room for support equipment, a bar, and the like, a
passenger capacity of 20 is probably believable, which would yield a per
person cost of #$2M.

This, of course, doesn't take into account the purchase of the passenger
module, much less it's development cost. I guess my vacation in space will
just have to wait a few years.

TCS

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

From: DIGEX@MIT-AI
Date: 11/26/81 00:22:16
Subject: Please add me to the Mailing list

DIGEX@MIT-AI 11/26/81 00:22:16 Re: Please add me to the Mailing list
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
CC: DIGEX at MIT-AI
Please add me to the mailing list.

Thanks,
Doug

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

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

28-Nov-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #43   
Date: 28 Nov 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #43
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 43

Today's Topics:
			 COST OF SHUTTLE FLIGHTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 November 1981 03:57-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: COST OF SHUTTLE FLIGHTS
To: TCS at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Well, the purpose of the L-5 Society is to dissolve itself at an
annual meeting held aboard a space colony.

Maybe just now it would cost 2 - 4 x 10e6 bucks for a shuttle
flight vacation, but give it time.  I intend to attend that
annual meeting of L-5...

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

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

29-Nov-81  0329	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #44   
Date: 29 Nov 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #44
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 44

Today's Topics:
		 "The Space Shuttle" vs "The Air Shuttle"
		    Does anyone out there really care?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 1981 1055-PST
Sender: LEAVITT at USC-ISI
Subject: "The Space Shuttle" vs "The Air Shuttle"
From:  Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
To: space at MC
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]28-Nov-81 10:55:09.LEAVITT>

        I suspect some of the people who have denied the
relevance of the parody have missed a part of its point.  The
issue is that when you have spent as much time, person-years, and
money as NASA has on our space program, you begin to think that
that is the only way it might have been done.  Nobody denies the
complexity of our current space vehicles and launch systems.  You
must go beyond asserting that complexity to respond to the
parody.  Could it have been done more expeditiously, cheaply, and
simply (and perhaps less safely) if profit and glory was the
objective, rather than national supremacy, military utility, and
the job security of thousands of engineers?  I don't know the
asnwer, although I have my suspicions.  But one needs to go
beyond the status quo to answer the issues raised in the parody.

        Mike <Leavitt at USC-ISI>

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

Mail-from: ARPANET site MIT-MC rcvd at 28-Nov-81 0513-EST
Date: 28 November 1981 05:12-EST
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-MC>
Subject: Does anyone out there really care?
To: space at SU-AI
cc: JNC at MIT-MC
Remailed-date: 28 Nov 1981 1707-EST
Remailed-from: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX>
Remailed-to: space at MIT-MC

	I saw the following item in an AP digest:

    UNDATED - Video games, models of the space shuttle Columbia and
cold-weather wear were among the hot-selling items as the traditional
Yuletide shopping rush began.

and it set me to thinking. My first reactions were "Wow, maybe now
there are more people interested in space, maybe we can get a little
more funding. Even better, the kids are getting into it now, and
that's a good sign for the future." Then I realized something: the US
has had a space program for almost 25 years. The people who were young
enough to be 'space kids' (up to, say, 14 years old when it started)
should be a major part of the population by now, but clearly they
aren't all as into it as we are. My recollections of my childhood
aren't as voluminous as I might wish; I know I was really into space
in 1961, but what about all the other kids from back then?  Were then
into it then? Are they into it now? I've seen only the sketchiest figures
on public support for the space program, but I seem to remember about
15% thought we were spending too much, and about the same thought we
ought to spend a lot more. I'd be interested in seeing more detailed
numbers, especially by age, etc.
	I could go on for a long time on a related train of things
(which would probably over-flow onto other lists) but I'll stop.
We oughta set up a sub-list for intensive flaming...
			Noel

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

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

30-Nov-81  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #45   
Date: 30 Nov 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #45
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 45

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Does anyone out there really care?
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #44
		   Does anybody out there really care?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 1981 13:31:46-PST
From: alice!sjb at Berkeley
To: ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: Re: Does anyone out there really care?

In-reply-to: JNC at MIT-XX

I really care!  You mentioned what's happening to kids
nowadays.  Well, I'm 15 and VERY into the space program.
I think that we should be pumping more money into it,
instead of cutting back almost every aspect of it to
fund the STS program.  Unfortunately, when I talk about
it to some of my friends in school, I find that they
really don't care -- whereas I have pictures on my wall
of the launches and landings of Columbia, I find that
most of them didn't even watch it on the evening news
(let alone live)!  I'd like to say something other than
that, but, unfortunately, I can't.

Adam Buchsbaum

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

Date: 29 Nov 81 15:42-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #44

Hello, I've been getting multiple copies of the SPACE digests now
for quite some time. Can we cure this?

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

Date:  29 November 1981 20:38 est
From:  Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Does anybody out there really care?
To:  JNC at MIT-MC, Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 29 November 1981 06:02 est from Ted Anderson

I can supply one modest data line in this area.

Back when we were landing on the moon, membership in the National
Association of Rocketry (a space modeling society) was around 3700--
its highest point.  "Model Rocketry" magazine was selling in hundreds
of hobby shops and, later, newsstands.  Our national meet drew 300+
competitors.

In the intervening years, our membership dropped.  At its lowest point
it was barely 1500.  "Model Rocketry" tubed.  National Meets did well to
draw 100, counting spectators at times.

Since the Shuttle hit in 1Q81, we've been busy taking advantage of the
upswing.  Our membership is now around 2500.  National Meets are drawing
around 150 (things are more expensive these days, of course).  We again
have a spacemodeling magazine back on hobby shop racks and it's selling
well.  And things still have a pleasant first derivative.

All I've done is confirm thet interest in space, especially among the
young (the modal age of spacemodelers in the US is 14), follows
successes in the space program.  Is it something the youngsters keep as
they grow up?  I think so.  Didn't you?

The problem may be that while "space kids" may be old enough to be
Governor of California, they're not old enough to be running the
Federal Government.  Those "space kids" who aren't in government may
be apathetic, but-- hey, it's the '80's-- you can't expect all of them
to be space activists.  At least they have warm fuzzies about space
as opposed to being "if God meant man to fly" types.  Anyway, when
pollsters run those "do you think space deserves the funding" polls, who
DO you think is out there answering "yes"?  Things are NOT dim!

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

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

01-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #46   
Date: 01 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #46
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 46

Today's Topics:
			   SPACE Digest V2 #44
			   long-term gigabucks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: HAROLD@MIT-ML
Date: 11/30/81 11:23:26
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #44

HAROLD@MIT-ML 11/30/81 11:23:26 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #44
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
I also seem to be getting two copies of the space digest.  This seems to
be a new bug as I was only getting one up to now.

Harold Goldberger

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

Date: 30 Nov 1981 22:18:23-PST
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: long-term gigabucks

"...NO company has the financial resources to plunge billions of
dollars into something that will take decades to pay itself off."

Nonsense!  Still worse:  ignorance!

Boeing put over one billion dollars of ITS OWN MONEY (not borrowed!)
into the development of the 747 and its production line.  It is a
verifiable fact that it took roughly a decade for this investment
to start paying off (747 #400 was figured to be the break-even point).
Nor was this a one-time fluke;  they have recently done the same thing
again, on a still bigger and costlier scale (several billion this
time), with the 757 and 767.  Again, most of the money was not even
borrowed;  it was $2-3 billion cash in hand!  Anyone want to bet the
payback time will be any shorter?

Boeing may not be QUITE in the do-it-yourself-space-shuttle league,
but they clearly are not far away from it.  Boeing, incidentally, has
expressed interest in buying the STS from NASA if/when NASA decides
to get out of the space-trucking business.

And if that example isn't good enough, most public-utility financing
is by private companies, and multibillion-dollar investments with
payoff times measured in decades are routine business there.  Some of
the projects, like the James Bay hydroelectric project, are already
well up in the tens-of-billions bracket:  that's Project-Apollo size.

						Henry

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

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

02-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #47   
Date: 02 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #47
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 47

Today's Topics:
			     Re: big projects
			  Re:  Who really cares?
			 The Air and Space Museum
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 1981 10:33:01-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc
Subject: Re: big projects

    Come on now! The 747 is completely non-analogous to any space project;
it was a substantial improvement over the aging 707 and as such was expected
to sell like hotcakes (which it did; 400 airplanes of that size corresponds
to a shitload of seatmiles). In addition, several successive administrations
in this country have shown no willingness to let badly-managed defense
contractors go under (although their solicitousness is directed more to
Lockheed than to Boeing). As for utilities, remember that they are the
provable sound (if low-paying) investment; in all your cases there is
a demonstrated track record for payoffs on money put into development.
Comparing this with the space shuttle is ridiculous.

   On this subject, it occurs to me that relatively few people have
realistically considered the social design necessary for any
wealth-from-space scheme shown. Traditionally, a colony exports raw
materials and imports finished goods. Given the gravity well this
could be marginally feasible. But, given the kind of people getting into
space, how long would this be acceptable? What happens when they realize
they have the knowhow to do most of the high-tech assembly themselves
(try to visualize suing a colony for patent violations)? (This already
has analogies in history---New England was a great milling area for over
a century after the revolution because an impatient apprentice memorized
the plans for all the machinery at a British mill.)
   Some of the best apolitical visualizations of this scenario (EARTHLIGHT,
THE STARS MY DESTINATION) have ended in war. Any bets?

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

Date: 1 Dec 1981 20:29:35-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
In-Reply-To: Your article of Sun Nov 29 03:21:34 1981  <ucbvax.5331>
To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley
Subject: Re:  Who really cares?

My own impression is that the Powers in our beloved government
underestimate the public interest in the space program.  The
National Air and Space Museum is the largest tourist attraction
in Washington, which shows a considerable degree of interest in
*something*.  Maybe it's just the inherent spectacularity of the
exhibits, and maybe it's just that the information is well-presented,
but I suspect there's more to it.

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

Date: 02 Dec 1981 0144-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: The Air and Space Museum
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The last and only time I was there was several years ago and I had occasion to
talk to the guy at the door counting people as they entered.  He claimed that
it was the biggest tourist attraction in the world.  The attendence count
beating out even such greats as Disneyland.  I don't remember if that was total
count of people for all time or a per year figure.  Also he could have been
completely wrong.  Still...

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

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

03-Dec-81  0308	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #48   
Date: 03 Dec 1981 0308-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #48
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 48

Today's Topics:
		    The National Air and Space Museum 
			 Does anyone really care
			 Aviation Week excerpts 
			 Oops ... forgot one    
		  Attendence at the Air and Space Museum
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 02 Dec 1981 1004-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: The National Air and Space Museum 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The interest in the National Air and Space Museum is not a matter
of contrast.  It is surrounded by the rest of the Smithsonian
and the rest of Washington,  all of which are pretty spectacular,
themselves.  I asked the people at one of the information booths
at NASM not too long ago about the crowds.  She didn't know why
they came but the NASM bookstore/souvenir shop does more business
than most of the other Smithsonian trinket shops.  Biggest sellers
are books on aviation/spaceflight and models of the same.  So 
perhaps the interest lies in the subject matter, not simply the 
matter of presentation.  I understand that this was Kennedy
Space Center's biggest year for tourism.  The number has been
steadily growing, though. Not just because of the recent launches.

A somewhat less cheerful note:  In my conversation with the lady
at the NASM Info desk, I mentioned that it was sad that Reagan
might be cutting back the NASA budget.  She said, ''Well, that's
OK, we have a lot of problems to solve here on Earth before we
can afford to do that sort of stuff again.''  Sigh.

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

Date: 2 Dec 1981 08:29:42-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley
Subject: Does anyone really care

I keep a "B.C." cartoon taped to my refrigerator door:

	"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in
	humanity!"

	"Why is that?"

	"It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals... and lets us get
	straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-
	annihilation."

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

Date: 02 Dec 1981 1438-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Aviation Week excerpts 
To:   space at MIT-MC  


From the November 30, 1981 issue of AWST

	''Soviet Union's new antisatellite battle station in low earth orbit is
escalating its capability for space warfare.  The antisatellite system is 
equipped with clusters of interceptor vehicles that could destroy US spacecraft
and has been identified as Cosmos 1,267, which has been docked to Salyut 6
since June 19, ostensibly as a test of enlarging the Salyut station's 
capabilities.'' . . . ''The Defense Dept. is concerned that future operational
spacecraft like Cosmos 1,267 will be launched into geosynchronous orbit to
threaten US communications and missle early warning spacecraft.'' . . .
''Docking of this antisatellite weapon platform with Salyut 6 means the USSR
would be able to use a manned Salyut to direct antisatellite attacks against
US spacecraft or to protect Soviet satellites against a US retaliatory attack.
US officials said the data on the new killer satellite system, which first 
appeared in an intelligence report Sept. 17, are now "very hard from a variety
of sources and methods; harder than anything we've seen in a long time."''

			     ================

	There is also an article describing NASA efforts to initiate the 
first phase of transferring the Shuttle ground processing to private industry.

			     ================

Official Doubts Space Station Need

	''A top Reagan Administration space policy official has told
Johnson Space Center personnel he foresees no need to establish a goal
of manned performance in space or the establishment of a space operations
center as the next National Aeronautics and Space Administration project
following the Shuttle program.''

	The article (which is too long to type) goes on to report that
Victor H. Reis, assistant director for national security in the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy, says that the US space goal should
be exploitation of the existing shuttle system, not a SOC.  

	''Although Reis' views do not necessarily rule out Reagan Administration
support for a large new space goal, they cloud the future on whether NASA will 
be able to pursue advanced development of such systems under the Reagan
Administration.''

	''Reis wants to stimulate the military space activity and military
uses of the space shuttle.  He foresees more autonomous military space shuttle
operations than are currently possible with the NASA/Defense Dept. cooperative
program.''

			     ================

Conceptual Design for a Mars Polar Orbiter will be conducted by RCA

	NASA has given RCA Astro-Electronics $20K to research a MPO
to look for water and CO2 on Mars.  Very useful stuff it you want
to spend some time on Mars.

			     ================

	There is also lots of stuff on STS-2 and a marvelous section
on computer graphics (CAD/CAM, Flight Simulators, Heads-Up Displays, etc)

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

Date: 02 Dec 1981 1445-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Oops ... forgot one    
To:   space at MIT-MC  


Also from Aviation Week

	USAF Undersecretary Edward C. Aldridge wants to transfer the Shuttle
to a different management structure once it is operational.  He foresees a
''space command'' for defense space operations.

	''Aldridge said the US must possess the ability to deny the use of 
space to the Soviets when their systems threaten US interests.''

	He also advocates expanding the fleet of orbiters, and the initiation
of a study of ''a Block 2 shuttle'' with more payload, volume and orbit
capabilities.

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

From: BRUC@MIT-ML
Date: 12/02/81 18:44:20
Subject:  Attendence at the Air and Space Museum

BRUC@MIT-ML 12/02/81 18:44:20 Re:  Attendence at the Air and Space Museum
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Does anyone know real numbers for this along with attendence at other tourist
attractions? Such facts would be nice to include in letters to the powers that
be.

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

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

04-Dec-81  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #49   
Date: 04 Dec 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #49
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 49

Today's Topics:
			    Air & Space Museum
			    new Soviet rocket?
		Re: big projects / do everything yourself?
			   long-term gigabucks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 1981 0930-EST
From: PDL at MIT-DMS (P. David Lebling)
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Subject: Air & Space Museum
Message-id: <[MIT-DMS].216913>

I've been to the Air & Space Museum twice in recent years, but also
visited other parts of the Smithsonian the same day.  The crowds at
A&S are easily double and possibly as much as ten times the crowds
at the other Smithsonian sub-museums.  For example, the Hirschorn
Gallery was nearly deserted both times.  The Natural History building
probably comes closest to A&S in attendence, but is quite obviously
much lower.  What this says about public interest in space I can't
say, though.

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

Date:  3 Dec 1981 1636-PST
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: new Soviet rocket?
To: space at MIT-MC

n055  1357  03 Dec 81
BC-ROCKET
(Newhouse 009)
By PATRICK YOUNG
Newhouse News Service
    WASHINGTON - The Soviet Union has resumed trying to build a giant
rocket powerful enough to put a space station in orbit around the
moon or send cosmonauts to Mars, U.S. space experts say.
    The rocket is believed to be designed to produce a thrust of 12
million to 14 million pounds, almost double the 7.6 million pound
thrust of the Saturn 5 rocket that launched U.S. astronauts to the
moon. Estimates place the rocket's payload capacity at up to seven
times that of the U.S. space shuttle.
    The Soviet Union began developing a giant rocket in the early 1960s,
but suspended work in 1974 after apparently suffering three launch
failures and other problems, according to Charles P. Vick, an expert
on the Soviet space program. One of the failures reportedly involved
an explosion that killed a number of people.
    U.S. intelligence sources and spy satellites have confirmed the
Russians are again working on a big booster. Non-government analysts
of the Soviet program say reports from inside Russia and
earth-resource-satellite photos from the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration also confirm the effort.
    ''The question is whether this is a new system or an attempt to
rebuild the old one,'' says James Oberg, a long-time observer of
Soviet space activities who authored the recent book, ''Red Star in
Orbit.''
    The Defense Department publicly acknowledged the Soviet work on the
giant rocket for the first time late in September.
    A few terse lines toward the end of a Defense report titled ''Soviet
Military Power'' said the rocket was designed to launch payloads
''six to seven times the launch weight capability of the space
shuttle.'' The shuttle is designed for a maximum cargo of 65,000
pounds, which would mean the new Soviet booster could launch up to
455,000 pounds.
    ''The new booster will be capable of putting very large permanently
manned space stations into orbit,'' the report said. ''The Soviet
goal of having continuously manned space stations may support both
defensive and offensive weapons in space with man in the space
station for target selection, repairs and adjustments and positive
command and control.''
    The Pentagon refuses to discuss the rocket beyond that brief
statement.
    The Soviets have made no announcement of the rocket and have been
more secretive about their plans than usual.
    ''They don't ever want to talk about launch vehicles,'' says a NASA
official who deals with Soviet space experts. ''We don't try to find
out, and they don't bring it up.''
    Bits of information have leaked out, in specialized and technical
Russian publications and from European space scientists with contacts
inside the Soviet Union.
    With this information and his studies of unclassified satellite
photos, Vick has been able to sketch a picture of the Soviet project.
    Recent photos reveal ''a tremendous amount of construction'' at the
Baykonur launch site east of the Aral Sea that is apparently related
to the rocket project, Vick says. This includes a 3 1/2-mile airstrip
and - ''if I'm interpreting the pictures correctly'' - three and
possibly four large buildings for constructing and supporting space
stations.
    Vick, who follows the Soviet space program as a contributor to an
international space encyclopedia, believes the rocket is essentially
the same one the Russians worked on for a decade, which in the United
States is often called Type G.
    ''It's the very powerful, brute-force launch vehicle talked about by
the CIA years ago,'' he says. ''I would expect a test flight in 1982,
and possible operations in 1983 or '84, but this thing has failed
three times and I wouldn't take bets.''
    Oberg says the Russians may be looking ahead to orbiting a space
station around the moon and to interplanetary flights.
    ''I wouldn't be surprised in 10 years to see a manned fly-by of Mars
as a demonstration - just out and back,'' Oberg says. ''That is still
a long ways from a landing. A landing would be a gigantic effort, but
this rocket would have the capability.''
    Both Vick and Oberg challenge the Pentagon's estimate of the
rocket's load capacity as too high.
    ''Based on my technical analysis, there is no way from its size that
that vehicle could have that capability,'' Vick says. He suggests a
maximum capacity of 356,000 pounds.
    Vick says the Type G booster is a three-stage rocket 307 feet tall,
which can also be fired as a smaller two-stage version. Its
first-stage engines, which Vick estimates number around 20, burn
liquid oxygen and kerosene.
    Early flights of the Type G went awry, Vick says. The first failed
in 1969 just after firing and ''apparently collapsed back on the
launch platform and obliterated everything.'' A 1971 shot ripped
apart at about 40,000 feet and a 1972 test apparently exploded 26
miles up.
BJ END YOUNG
    
nyt-12-03-81 1656est
**********
-------

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

Date: 4 December 1981 02:10-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: big projects / do everything yourself?
To: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

Initially any space colony will depend on Earth for virtually all its
life support and joys of life (gadgets to play with and cultural
productions such as movies). Even if some people in space start making
things for themselves, the variety of things they will want will greatly
exceed the variety of things they can make themselves until they have
a population of a billion or so, which won't be for a long time,
perhaps a century. After all, Sunnyvale (near San Jose, CA) has a lot
of experts, but do they make everything themselves? No, they buy just
about everything from stores that are part of chains that have nationwide
or worldwide. They specialize in a small number of products (a few
thousand major items, mostly electronics and food-canning), and import
everything else they need. The same is true of just about every other
medium-sized city, even those which are moderately isolated.
So don't except any space colony of a mere million people to cut itself
off totally from trade with Earth unless Earth has a nuclear war.

I expect a space colony will specialize in:
 Bulk energy and energy-intensive raw materials (Aluminum, Titanium,
  pure Silicon for electronics);
 Zero-gee sci-fi movie special effects;
 Ball bearings and other things best made in space, including vaccines.
 Astronomical observations;
and import just about everything else it needs/wants from Earth.

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

Date: 4 December 1981 02:34-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: long-term gigabucks
To: decvax!utzoo!henry at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Hmmm, add Boeing to my list of big companies that ought to be asked
if they want to buy an orbiter (Exxon, Xerox, ITT, ...) as soon as
we get Congress to permit it (after NASA finishes getting the bugs worked
out of the design sometime next year).

Now for the investment question. Indeed it appears billion-dollar
investments aren't common but have been done a few times by Boeing
and a few other giant companies. So let's concentrate on the
differences between the 747 and the shuttle, let's try to find
anything about the shuttle that would discourage the investment
by the same company that invested in the 747.  If the differences
aren't big, well maybe the private-shuttle idea will work.

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

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

05-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #50   
Date: 05 Dec 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #50
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 50

Today's Topics:
		Re: big projects / do everything yourself?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Dec 1981 11:45:01-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: REM at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: big projects / do everything yourself?
Cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

In response to your message of Fri Dec  4 07:53:17 1981:

   I don't see this as realistic given the costs of getting mass into even
LEO. As long as this umbilical cord is uncut space colonists will be a
very select, privileged, \and/ \constricted/ group of people, rather like
present-day European constitutional monarchs----how does that fit in with
the dreams of your average L-5'er (or your average Ghenghis Khan liberal,
to use a metaphor favored by participants in this digest)?

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

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

06-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #51   
Date: 06 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #51
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 51

Today's Topics:
		 Request for references on Project Orion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 05 Dec 1981 2140-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Request for references on Project Orion
To:   space at MIT-MC  

MSG: ORION1 1     
LEVIN@MIT-MC 12/05/81 16:25:45 Re: Project Orion
	A recent rerun of Cosmos extolled the virtues of Project Orion.
I am interested in finding more information about its performance, design
and failings.  I would appreciate any pointers to review articles or government
reports.  Replies to Levin@MC

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

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

07-Dec-81  0302	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #52   
Date: 07 Dec 1981 0301-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #52
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 52

Today's Topics:
		      Big computer is watching you..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  6 Dec 1981 0611-EST
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX>
Subject: Big computer is watching you..
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-XX

	Just out of interest, I wonder if this digest goes to people at
any of the NASA sites on the net, and if so how high up into NASA the
readership goes? (Before you state the obvious next step, remember that
random mailing lists are officially a no-no, et cetera, ad infinitum
(or perhaps that should be ad astra on this list!).)
-------

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

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

08-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #53   
Date: 08 Dec 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #53
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:
	      Re: Re: big projects / do everything yourself?
				  Orion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 1981 10:04 PST
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Re: big projects / do everything yourself?
In-reply-to: csin!cjh's message of 4 Dec 1981 11:45:01-EST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

The costs of getting mass into even LEO is strictly a result of having to carry
chemical fuel with you during launch.  The cost of say electrical energy to
launch into orbit is pennies per pound, if you don't carry the fuel with you that
you are burning.  Once we harness high energy fuels (nuclear) or learn to beam
up the launch energy, space colonists may be no more select and privileged than
automobile drivers.  

/Don Lynn

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

Date:  7 Dec 1981 1556-EST
From: JoSH <JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Orion
To: space at MIT-AI

A description of the Orion project is given in Freeman Dyson's
excellent "Disturbing the Universe."
--JoSH
-------

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

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

09-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #54   
Date: 09 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #54
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 54

Today's Topics:
		    Arthur Kantrowitz talk at Harvard
			getting there (high power)
			       Galileo cut
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: BRUC@MIT-ML
Date: 12/08/81 12:27:28
Subject:  Arthur Kantrowitz talk at Harvard

BRUC@MIT-ML 12/08/81 12:27:28 Re:  Arthur Kantrowitz talk at Harvard
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
	Last night, Arthur Kantrowitz gave a talk at Harvard titled,
"What is Holding Back the Utilitization of Outer Space?". He made a
number of provocative statements that should prove interesting to those
(such as myself) who hadn't heard them before.

	He opened his talk by looking at societal environment for space
utilization. In the thirties, Bernal, a physicist, foresaw huge numbers
of people living in spheres in space colonies. At the time, getting into
orbit was the problem. Now, we can get into orbit, but the future for
space is cloudly (much to all our chagrin).

	NASA and the politics behind its expenditures provide a partial
explanation of what's happening. In his view, the goal of making space
reasonably accessible was secondary to goal of pumping money and high
technology into the states which held Lyndon Johnson's allegiance,
particularly Texas. Second, he implied that the pursuit of safety in the
Apollo program may have been excessive. He pointed out that the only men
who were killed died in a safety exercise rather than in space.

	He then considered the financial and energetic barriers to
getting into low earth orbit. If you calculate the kinetic energy of one
pound at orbital velocity 100 miles up, you get an energy value of 4.5
kwh/lb (25 cents!!). The shuttle will cost in the high hundreds of
dollars per pound. Amortizing the development cost ($10 billion) of the
shuttle will take on the order of 1000 flights because the savings in
cost is only a couple of hundred dollars per pound.

	What is wrong with the shuttle, then? First, it has wings. If an
orbiter had a more compact shape, the reentry would not be such a
problem. It would land by parachute and the final impact would be
dissipated by some sort of crushable material. Such a design would not
preclude reusability of most of the hardware. Why does it have wings?
Politics. Only the aerospace companies would get a contract to build it.
The shuttle keeps NASA in business these days; without it, they'd be a
shell.

	What are better ways? He suggested three. All of these are
"railways to space" as he put it. Without such a system, space will
never be well utilized.

	1) The big dumb booster. A very large booster that could be
built with standard metals (he suggested the Chicago Bridge and Iron
Works as prime contractor). He didn't give many details on it.

	2) Mass driver to orbital speeds on earth. He suggested that a
properly designed projectile (telegraph poles) would not have drag high
enough to keep it from orbit. The work he described was done by Cohen
(spelling?).

	3) Laser launching system. He worked on this at Avco Everett.
You use a laser to heat a gas to whatever temperature you require and
shoot it out the back. Presumably, the laser would be on the ground
shooting at the capsule going into orbit (See J. Pournelle's High
Justice for a good sf story based on this idea.) You'd need about a
gigawatt of power to launch one ton into orbit.
	A fair amount of research was done on this concept. Dr.
Kantrowitz demonstrated a small version of this system to von Braun. His
reaction was one of interest, but he asked that it not be publicized as
the enemies of the shuttle would then have a weapon to kill the shuttle
off without having something better to replace it.

	But what will really make people go into space? Pressures from
society. The threat of nuclear war, limits to growth. He suggested that
if pessimistic and optimistic visionaries would talk to each other
rather than past each other, space is the obvious solution to many of
our problems.

	After the talk, there was some discussion. One of the
interesting points he made was that the space based, laser ballistic
defense system looked very good to him. He was upset at Tsipis for his
article in the December Scientific American because he left out
possibilities that destroy the arguments he presented in the article. In
particular, the power for such a system could also come from the ground
via a mirror in higher orbit, or a larger nuclear power plant. He felt
that such a large station could be easily shielded from the attack of
another such large station (by mass), yet it would still be effective
against missiles which have a thin shell.

	I found the talk fascinating. In particular, I was struck by the
idea that the laser launching system could probably be developed at
roughly the same cost as the shuttle. We blew it with the shuttle in a
sense. For the same price we could have been putting pounds into orbit
for at least a tenth the cost we'll be paying for the next decade.

						Bob Bruccoleri

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

Date: 8 Dec 1981 12:30:50-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: getting there (high power)
Cc: space at mit-mc

   Do you really believe that nuclear or electric power will be feasible
for earth launches any time in the forseeable future? Most of the
schemas I've seen for [electric] (e.g., ion-powered) rockets talk about
low levels of continuous thrust, suitable for interplanetary travel.
Note that you still have to have reaction mass from somewhere (although I
suppose you could get as much as 20 miles up using ambient air as a reaction
mass, which would help).
   I'm willing to look at long shots to get into space, but not to plan on
miracles when proejcting what space will be like.

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

Date:  9 Dec 1981 0014-EST
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX>
Subject: Galileo cut
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-XX

	'Galileo Juptier orbiter/probe and 50% of NASA's aeronautics
program have been cut from the agency's Fiscal 1983 budget by the
OMB. The $300 million already invested in Galileo would be lost as
well as about 1,200 jobs at the JPL. the move would end U.S. planetary
exploration, a concept the White House supports. Aeronautics cuts
would have a long term impact on national aeronautical capability,
especially in competing with other world markets, and NASA administrator
Beggs is expected to appeal directly to Reagan.
	White House OSTP, headed by presidential science advisor George
Keyworth, has taken a position that the U.S. planetary program should be
halted because of what the staff believes is limited 'show-biz' results
compared with other scientific investigations.'

	There's more, specifically an article about the the House/Senate
conference on the NASA budget, in which the legislature seemed pretty
pro-NASA. The had money for a continuing option on two spacecraft for
the ISPM, Galileo, aero research, orbiting infrared telescope, and (if
I read this right) some for a fifth orbiter. An attempt to add Halley's
lost.
	How many B-1's does it take to suppport a civilian U.S. space
program? (Hint: same number as average administration member's IQ.)
-------

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

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

10-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #55   
Date: 10 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #55
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
		      Shuttling off the mortal coil
			     Galileo article
		  Canadian Governement ups Space Funding
			   Laser Launch Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  9 Dec 1981 1121-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Shuttling off the mortal coil
To: space at MIT-MC

        As concerns having 'blown' it by building the Shuttle, I  remind
the audience  that the  Shuttle, although  full of  innovations and  new
hardware, is based in mid-70's  space technology, which IS reliable  AND
proven (unlike  esoteric  methods  such  as  laser  launching  and  mass
drivers).

        It is  obvious  that  chemical  rockets  are  not  going  to  be
sufficent in the long run for  getting places. HOWEVER, that is  exactly
what we are  stuck with  for the time  being.  Of  course, the  esoteric
methods could probably be made to work if a gigabuck or two were  poured
into them, but there is always the  problem of "What if it doesn't  work
on the scale we need it to?"   With current technology, we KNOW it  will
work on the scale involved (up to the scale of the Saturn V).

        While  undoubtedly  politics  were  involved  with  the  Shuttle
winging its  way back  to earth,  that is  ALSO based  on known,  proven
aerodynamic technology.  Also,  an aerodynamic return  vechile has  more
flexibility  on   landing   site   selection   than   the   falling-rock
Mercury/Vostok/Gemini/Vokshod/Apollo/Soyuz genre.

        Face it, there  are LOTS of  things that COULD  have been  done.
But if you were  going to attack the  problem of reusable (cheap)  space
transportation, with  ~2  gigabucks of  taxpayers  money, (and  all  the
political bullshit attached thereto) would you adopt untried  technology
for its base?  No one  wants their  head on a  pole because  of a  wrong
decision, not scientist or engineer or Congressman.

-------

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

Date:  9 Dec 1981 1452-EST
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX>
Subject: Galileo article
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-XX

	Was from this week's AW&ST. Sorry, gang....
-------

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

Date: 9 Dec 1981 20:05:55-PST
From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley
To: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: Canadian Governement ups Space Funding


The Canadian space program may not be large, but at least it is growing.
The Toronto Globe and Mail this morning said that Canadian Space Program
funding will increase by 38% next year.  This means over $100 million more
(1 dollar = 84 cents US) for various programs.

A large amount will go into L-Sat's sollar array, in cooperation with the ESA.
The Minister said that Government support for space development will be
maintained "considerably ahead of the inflation rate".

Details will be given later today on M-Sat, which will be for mobile communication,
providing instant links for vehicles.  Potential sales of the system are
expected to be in the billions world-wide.  Space radar for tracing weather
is also getting more.
Total Canadian spending on space will now be raised to the $500 million level.

A fair portion of the money will go to Spar Aerospace, the company that
built the space shuttle arm.

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

Date: 10 Dec 1981 0155-PST
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Laser Launch Systems
To: space at MIT-MC, info-laser at MIT-AI


In regard to the recent message appearing in the SPACE digest
concerning the possibility of using lasers, stationed on the ground, to
supply the power to launch payloads into earth orbit by heating the
reaction mass in a chamber at the bottom of the "rocket" and using the
expanding gasses to propell the payload.

I have always been interested in these systems as a potentially
good replacement for rocket power.  However, I have some technical
questions (which eventually translate to economic questions).

1)	What payload capacity are we talking about?  This depends
	upon the answers to several other questions, but it is an
	important bottom line factor.  In the short run we want
	high capacity in order to reduce assembly costs of
	components in orbit.

2)	What power levels can the lasers maintain?  Remember, those
	levels have to be maintained until orbit is acheived.  A
	series of lasers firing in sequence could be used instead
	of a single laser, but that increases capital costs.

3)	How many lasers are needed per launch?  What is the
	turnaround time between launches?  What is the cost of
	each laser?

4)	What is the cost of the energy used per launch (or
	more simply, how much energy do you need)?

With reasonable figures for these parameters, some figuring can
be done.  Till then we are simply wasting air.  Any laser experts
out there?

Jim

-------

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

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

11-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #56   
Date: 11 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #56
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 56

Today's Topics:
			     Shuttle's wings
		  Shuttle's and laser launching system  
			 laser launching systems
			      Meteor showers
			   Penthouse, please..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 December 1981 1040-EST (Thursday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Shuttle's wings
Message-Id: <10Dec81 104051 DS30@CMU-10A>

The shuttle's wings are as big as they are because the Air Force won
the argument with NASA.  The AF wanted the ability to fly up to
1,000 miles cross-range on reentry.  This is needed in the event that
a shuttle launched into a polar orbit from Vandenberg has to come
down after one orbit.

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

From: BRUC@MIT-ML
Date: 12/10/81 11:12:09
Subject:  Shuttle's and laser launching system	

BRUC@MIT-ML 12/10/81 11:12:09 Re:  Shuttle's and laser launching system	
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
	First, the research on the laser launching system was done by
Avco Everett Research Labs. I've asked them for a report, and if and
when I get it, I will report some of its results here.

	Next, I don't know too many technical details of the system,
but Dr. Kantrowitz did mention a few. The system they were designing
would have put a one ton capsule into orbit (at 10 g's). It would have
required a one gigawatt (average power input) laser. Currently, the
unclassified record is two megawatts (probably average power output).
In any event, getting something that big would require many lasers
operating in parallel. The cost of operating the system is that of the
power plus whatever maintenence.  At 10 g, orbit is achieved in about 90
seconds, so the system requires 25000 kwh per ton in orbit. At 10
cents/kwh, that's $2500.

	As far the politics of developing the shuttle went, NASA's
decision to go with the shuttle at the time was OK. Laser technology
was nowhere near the levels it's at now. Mass drivers would have
plausible. Ditto for the big dump booster idea. It's understandable
why they didn't pursue any more esoteric system, but that doesn't make
it any less of a shame. Avco isn't working on the laser launch system
anymore, and they should be. The research should still be happening,
but the threat it poses to the shuttle via the powerful critics of the
shuttle is still signifigant. I suppose that once the shuttle is
operational and in heavy demand, we can really start pursuing all
these launch systems energetically. But then, there probably won't be
any money for research on advanced designs (OMB is trying to cut all
such research from NASA's budget.)

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

Date: 10 Dec 1981 1158-CST
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: laser launching systems
To: space at MIT-MC

It occurs to me that a laser launching system can be considered to be
just another use of a high-power laser weapon, in that the operational
characteristics are essentially identical.  Rather than melting the
skin of the vehicle, of course, one hopes to heat/vaporize some
substance that exhausts at a high velocity.  But there are some very
serious problems with this approach.  To quote from the most recent
issue of High Technology (v. 1, no. 2, Nov/Dec 1981, pp. 79-80):

	As the evidence indicates, there's no consensus of opinion
	on the feasibility of laser weapons.  The technological issues
	are complex and far from settled, and they present a major
	challenge for scientists and engineers.  Building a large enough
	laser, while by no means a trivial task, is probably the easiest
	step; even such pessimists as Tsipis [MIT] and Callaham [CMU]
	concede that high laser powers appear to be attainable.  The
	most serious problems arise in reliably directing high powers
	onto a small enough area of a distant, moving target for a long
	enough time to do lethal damage.

	The atmosphere presents a complex set of problems.  Although it
	looks transparent, the atmosphere isn't transparent enough for
	high-energy lasers.  Even clear air absorbs a tiny fraction of
	the light going through it, and any absorption at all can be a
	serious source of trouble when trying to transmit millions of
	watts of light.  That slight absorption is enough to heat the
	air a little, and as the air is heated it expands, reducing its
	density.  As density decreases, the refractive index of the air
	in the beam path decreases, in effect making the air into a negative
	lens, spreading out the beam -- an effect called "thermal blooming."
	Atmospheric turbulence and a variety of other effects can also make
	laser beams wander off their targets.

The next paragraph goes on about focussing problems (insuring sufficient
energy presence/density at the target) which arise even in space.  A
recent Sci. Am. article dwells on the focussing/tracking issues, which
are a source of some controversy.  But the big, perhaps insurmountable
problem for earth launches would appear to be atmospheric distortion.
Unless the atmosphere is darn-near 100% transparent at some wavelength
for which we can induce a substance to lase at extraordinary power levels,
or we can find a way to make and sustain large tubular holes in the air,
it ain't-a-gonna-work!

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

Date:  9 Dec 1981 2039-EST
From: G.RONNIE at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI
Subject: Meteor showers
To: ota at S1-A

Has there been some kind of meteor shower going on in the past 3 or
4 weeks? I ask because during this time I have seen an excess of
meteors shooting across the sky.

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

Date: 10 Dec 1981 18:51 PST
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Penthouse, please..
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Wedekind.es

I think it was OMNI where I saw the space elevator idea; they would run on
cables which are anchored on the equator and extend somewhat past the
geosynchronous orbit (22,000 miles?), where there is a big weight tied at
the end to keep them stretched tight.

If I remembered that much right, a few picky technical problems come to
mind. The first is that it requires very strong cables - able to support
at least 3,000 miles of their sea level weight by my calculations.

I don't remember if the OMNI article was presented as speculative science
or out-and-out fiction; does the idea seem ridiculous now, ridiculous for
the near future, or just forevermore ridiculous?

					Jerry 

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

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

12-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #57   
Date: 12 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #57
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 57

Today's Topics:
			      Space Elevator
			     space elevators
			  Launching Laser Costs
	       Atmospheric distortion and high power lasers
		      cost of power for laser launch
			     Penthouse please
		 Laser launches from the Moon or in Orbit
			   Penthouse, Yes Sir!
			     Penthouse, P.S.
			      Strong cables
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Dec 1981 05:55:28-PST
From: CSVAX.wildbill at Berkeley
To: space-enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Subject: Space Elevator

The concept has been around for quite some time. I first remember encountering
it about 10 years ago, at which time a friend and I did a calculation
about how big it would have to be to support its own weight. As I recall,
using steel as the material (as we did in our test case) requires that the
cable be several times as big around as the earth at its widest point in
order to be 1 inch around at sea level. There are obviously some problems here.

Arthur C. Clarke did an excellent treatment of this idea a few years back
in his novel \\The Fountains of Paradise//. He avoided the problem by inventing
a super-strong material with just the right properties for building such a
device to keep the story going.

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

Date: 11 Dec 1981 1106-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: space elevators
To: space at MIT-MC

	The idea of elevators into space is not new, I recall seeing it
mentioned in a Sunday-suppliment magazine in the mid-60s. For a more
proper treatment (rather than OMNI), read Arthur C. Clarke's 
"The Fountains of Paradise".
-------

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

Date: 11 Dec 1981 0954-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Launching Laser Costs
To: space at MIT-MC

That figure of $2500 per ton for th energy to launch a payload with 
a laser is probably low, because a gigawatt laser will consume a lot more
than 1 gigawatt of power.  Don't forget R&D costs, either.

To solve the turbulence problem we can put the laser on top of a
mountain, just like a telescope.  In this respect the launcher has an
advantage over a laser weapon, because the weapon has to be able to work
anywhere.  A good choice for a launch site would be one of the Hawaiian
shield volcanoes - there is very little turbulence there.  
-------

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

From: BRUC@MIT-ML
Date: 12/11/81 14:48:54
Subject: Atmospheric distortion and high power lasers

BRUC@MIT-ML 12/11/81 14:48:54 Re: Atmospheric distortion and high power lasers
To: space at MIT-MC
	If a laser pulse is sufficiently short, the air molecules
won't have time to move in order to affect the index of refraction. 
Atmospheric distortion really wouldn't be a problem. Absorption is a problem
with visble wavelength light under certain weather conditions. Building
it in the desert would be a good solution.

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

Date:  11 December 1981 15:08 cst
From:  VaughanW at HI-Multics (Bill Vaughan)
Subject:  cost of power for laser launch
Sender:  VaughanW.REFLECS at HI-Multics
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

You can't assume that big lasers are plugged into somebody's power line,
and therefore you can't use $/KWH that are based on such an assumption.

Here's one way to do it, if you *insist* on using electrical rather than
chemical energy:

Compute the size of a 1GWatt power plant.  Figure out what it costs to
build it.  Assume some realistic interest rate.  (No fair using 3 or 4
percent.)  Add the costs to the cost of your laser.  I hope you also
used a realistic interest rate for the laser.  I think you will find
that your fuel costs are negligible by comparison with your interest
costs.

Maybe you can get some of your costs back by agreeing to sell power to
people who don't mind losing it for some time either side of a launch.

Seriously, peaking power is much more costly than baseline load, and you
are talking about a gigawatt of peaking power.

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

Date:  11 December 1981 18:02 est
From:  Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Penthouse please
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 11 December 1981 06:02 est from Ted Anderson

The idea isn't exactly new.  Arthur Clarke wrote a medium-sized novel
around this idea several years ago.  More technology from the man who
invented the value of the geosynchronous orbit-- perhaps the NEXT big
value of the geosynchronous orbit?!

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

Date: 11 Dec 1981 1452-PST
From: Bob Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: Laser launches from the Moon or in Orbit
To: space at MIT-AI

If  atmospheric dissipation of laser's  is the major problem
to their  successful  use then  wouldn't  it be  logical  to
propose them as a means  of propulsion in space and from the
moon,  with the shuttle  as the Earth-bound  vehicle. Is the
shuttle's design economical for OTHER than trips through the
atmosphere?, i.e. would we  be likely to use the shuttle for
orbiting the moon or landing on it. Does No Air = No Shuttle
for space travel?
-------

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

Date: 11 December 1981 2234-EST (Friday)
From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60)
To: space at MIT-MC, Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject:  Penthouse, Yes Sir!
CC: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A

	Cables for travel to earth orbit are hardly more far out than
chemical rockets or cannon.  They become practical when bulk materials
exhibiting one tenth the laboratory strength/weight ratios of single
crystals become available.  The best materials these days are Graphite
composites and the synthetic Kevlar, both of which have about six
times the strength/weight of steel.  Another factor of six improvement
would do it, well within the measured, not to mention theoretical,
limits for normal matter.  Chemical rockets have the same problem -
only the most energetic fuels will do.  The shuttle's main engines
operate within a factor of two of theoretical limits.

	The anchored cable you mention is the simplest, but also most
expensive, of a whole class of cable based schemes.  In principal you
can build a cable to synch orbit (22,000 mi above surface) and beyond
out of any material.  The secret is to taper it so that the cross
section at each level is just large enough to support the weight of
the cable below.  The cable starts thin on the ground, gets fatter as
you go up, is thickest at synchronous altitude, and thins down again
farther out.  The problem is that the ultimate taper (ratio of cross
section at synch height to that at ground) is exponential in the
strength to weight ratio of the material.  Using steel you would need
a taper of about 10^40.  Kevlar or graphite brings it down to about 10^7
(almost reasonable), and with another factor of six it becomes 10 and
merely a large engineering project.  (The mass ratio of a rocket that can
leave earth is similarly sensitive to the specific energy of the fuel.)
There are at least two novels centering on this concept - Arthur Clarke's
"The Fountains of Paradise" and Charles Sheffield's "The Web Between
the Worlds".

	A very simple variant of the idea which is practical today
is to have long cables spinning in orbit.  A long tapered
Kevlar cable orbiting the sun at the same distance as earth
and spinning about its own axis could, on each half rotation,
boost a payload massing about one hundredth of the cable's mass from a
Venus/Earth minimum energy trajectory to one that takes it to Mars.
The cable would lose orbital velocity in this maneuver, but would
get it back when an equivalent mass used it to get back from Mars
to Venus.  Such inertial energy storage could make the energy
cost of solar system commuting practically zero!  The maneuver
involves docking with the end of the cable, hanging on for about a
half turn and letting go, with your velocity vector much changed.
The docking with the end of the cable could be made as slow and
low g as desired, because a cable with a given delta v capability
can be built either short and fast spinning, for high turnover
but tricky docking, or arbitrarily long and thin and slow.  The
mass remains unchanged as you excercise this tradeoff.

	So in conclusion, another factor of five to ten improvement
in high strength materials will make the space elevator concept in
all its variants not only practical but practically humdrum.
Ten to twenty years at the outside in my estimate, but I suppose
it would not be conservative to count on it.  (And we're all
conservative, right?)

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

Date: 11 December 1981 2237-EST (Friday)
From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60)
To: space at MIT-MC, Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject:  Penthouse, P.S.
CC: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A

Further reading available through this net address.

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

From: FONER@MIT-AI
Date: 12/12/81 01:16:34
Subject: Strong cables

FONER@MIT-AI 12/12/81 01:16:34 Re: Strong cables
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
I got a report about a year ago from DuPont on their interesting
material called Kevlar, which is some five times stronger than steel
for its weight and has some other interesting properties to boot.

They mentioned the "skyhook" idea, but commented that even though
Kevlar was strong, it wasn't \that/ strong.  They did, however,
include some useful engineernig data on Kevlar (of course!) and on the
skyhook idea (which was nice of them).

I'll dig the report out tomorrow and send any useful parts to the
list.

						<LNF>

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

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

13-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #58   
Date: 13 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #58
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 58

Today's Topics:
			     Ultimate limits
			      Space Elevator
		      cost of power for laser launch
			     Penthouse please
			   Penthouse, Yes Sir!
			      Strong cables
			      Space Elevator
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: FONER@MIT-AI
Date: 12/12/81 22:42:02
Subject: Ultimate limits
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

I know this is a little off the subject, but as long as somebody
brought it up...  what ARE the ultimate limits on matter?  How is the
maximum theoretical strength of matter computed, and what is it?
What, for that matter, is the maximum strength of single crystals,
theoretical or measured?

Again, what's the theoretical limit on fuel power to mass, and how is
it arrived at?  Any such experts out there?

Thanx.

						<LNF>

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

Date: 13 December 1981 04:42-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Space Elevator
To: CSVAX.wildbill at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

Dr. Charles Sheffield, then President of AAS, did a bit on space
cables out of Kevlar +; better, really, than Clarke's, and
written at about the same time.

HPM (Hans Moravec) has done some good analyses of space cables
also; as have Minsky and Lowell Wood.

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

Date: 13 December 1981 04:48-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: cost of power for laser launch
To: VaughanW at HI-MULTICS
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

At then current interest rates I worked out the whole cost of
building nuclear power plants in Baja Calif (thus avoiding the
permit problems of building them in USA); bribing officials
there; providing security; building transmission lines to the US
power grid; building lasers; and setting up a launch system.
The power is to be sold to the US when not used to launch
spacecraft.  Admittedly it is fiction, but for a multi-billion
buck investment Hansen Enterprises (in my stories) got a very
handsome return on investment, this in a time of economic
stagnation in the US.  See the book "HIGH JUSTICE" Pocket, about
1979 for details.  (I make about .20 on each copy sold, so all
y'all go buy one and make me rich.)

JEP

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

Date: 13 December 1981 04:49-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Penthouse please
To: Tavares.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

Incidentally, the Sheffield novel is called THE WEB BETWEEN THE
WORLDS.  It is perhaps not as dramatic as Clarke's (or maybe it
is); it is certainly more technically detailed.

It involves building a beanstalk.

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

Date: 13 December 1981 04:54-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Penthouse, Yes Sir!
To: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC

	Except that it's "in principle" not "in principal" I
can't think of much to disagree with.  Eventually we have to
escape from the rocket equation.  Why not begin working on it now?

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

Date: 13 December 1981 04:57-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Strong cables
To: FONER at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

One night out at Pajaro Dunes when we had nothing to do, Minsky
and I (mostly Minsky) worked out the strengths and mass of
cables to use a "King David" sling (centrifugal) to throw stuff
off the Moon.  Lo!, it's easily within the strength of Kevlar.
You have to build a steel structure to give the mess rigidity,
but the actual tension is held by a Kevlar cable; thus if you
send up a lunar colony, Kevlar is a fairly important requirement
of what to take with you.

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

Date: 13 Dec 1981 03:11:06-PST
From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley
To: sytek!menlo70!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: Space Elevator

The space elevator was the subject of quite a bit of recent writing, not the
least of which was  the novel "The Fountains of Paradise" by Arthur C. Clark.
At about the same time that this book was published, another author/scientist
published another novel on the same subject.  An extract from the novel, and an 
article desciribing the system in more mathematical detail than is possible in 
a novel appeared in Destinies, a paperback magazine (bookazine? magazook?)
formerly published by Ace.  I am afraid I can remember neither the date of
the issue, nor the author's name, because my copy is still in one of the boxes
piled in what will soon (Klono willing) be my library.  Perhaps Dr. Pournelle
can supply us the name/dates??

 -Berry Kercheval

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

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

14-Dec-81  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #59   
Date: 14 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #59
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 59

Today's Topics:
		     Costs of laser launch facilities
			 hammering the dinosaurs
	       Beam weapons, comments from Access to Energy
			    Ultimate strengths
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 1981 0916-PST
Sender: LEAVITT at USC-ISI
Subject: Costs of laser launch facilities
From:  Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
To: VaughnW at HI-MULTICS
Cc: SPACE at MC
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]13-Dec-81 09:16:59.LEAVITT>

        Actually, you must worry about interest costs in building
these big facilities only if you are a "public" utility or a
government.  Utilities finance captial projects through bonds
much more often than through new stock issues, and everything new
that the government funds must be considered to be funded from
the proceeds of a loan at the going short-term T-bill rate.

        If, instead, you are an entrepreneur, you have the option
of substituting equity growth for interest as the inducement to
get new capital.  This is the way most new enterprises get their
capital if they can avoid the venture capitalists for long
enough.


        Mike <Leavitt at USC-ISI>

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

Date: 13 December 1981 12:49-EST
From: Ron L. Levin <LEVIN at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

	Thank you for all the replies about project Orion.  These are listed
 in MC:USERS5;LEVIN ORION.  Two people mentioned McPhee and his book "On the
 Curve of Binding Energy."  The consensus is that it probably works, and that
 it may be possible to reach 10% of the speed of light in a year.  A model
 with "equivalent" TNT explosives was tried.  The advantage of Project Orion
 over other nuclear powered systems, is the rapidity with which nuclear fuel
 can be consumed.  The project was terminated with the nuclear test ban treaty.
 

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

Date: 13 Dec 1981 1648-PST
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
Subject: hammering the dinosaurs
To: space at MIT-MC

!a266  1741  12 Dec 81
AM-Dinosaur Deaths,480
Theory Blames Dust, Darkness for End of Dinosaurs
By ROBERT LOCKE
AP Science Writer
    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - For perhaps two months, the Earth was wrapped
in a cloud of dust so thick that the sun was obscured and temperatures
over land everywhere fell below zero.
    Within six months, according to the new verion of a 2-year-old
theory, the landscape was littered with carcasses. Species after
species became extinct. Plants stopped growing and dinosaurs couldn't
find enough food and died.
    The idea that a giant asteroid or comet, crashing to Earth and
kicking up huge clouds of dust 65 million years ago, ended the
140-million-year reign of the dinosaurs was described at a meeting of
the American Geophysical Union by atmospheric scientist Owen B. Toon.
    Toon, of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Ames
Research Center at Mountain View, Calif., said theories of the end of
the dinosaurs continue to stir considerable interest.
    ''It's one of the longest-standing mysteries in science,'' he said
in an interview Friday. ''If it could happen to them, it could happen
to us. They were the kings of the earth.''
    The extinction of the giant reptiles launched the age of mammals,
which survived, Toon theorizes, because they were small enough to
burrow underground for warmth ''and could probably stumble across
enough food,'' including dead dinosaurs.
    ''All the mammals were mostly mice and little things like that and
that's how we survived ... But if you're a big guy like a dinosaur,
you've got to find an awful lot of food,'' Toon said. ''Plus, you can
imagine how dangerous it would be for a dinosaur to stumble around in
the dark.''
    He said cold and the inability to find food probably killed off any
creature that weighed more than 75 pounds.
    The idea of a dust-producing collision was proposed in 1980 by a
team of scientists led by Walter Alvarez of the University of
California's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
    They based the theory on geologic evidence that, about 65 million
years ago, a thin layer of debris was deposited around the Earth. The
concentration of certain metals in this layer is much different from
that found in the Earth's crust, but about right for an asteroid.
    The group concluded that a meteorite, perhaps 8 miles across, caused
a dust cloud that darkened the Earth for several years.
    Toon, with colleagues at Ames, R&D Associates of Marina del Rey, the
University of Colorado and Informatics, Inc., of Palo Alto, used
computer simulations designed to study volcanic ash and the
atmospheres of other planets to better determine the effects of such a
collision.
    The team presents a different picture, with shorter but more
dramatic impacts.
    ''The duration was less than six months and possibly less than three
months,'' Toon said.
    The crash, possibly in the ocean, would have had 10 million times
the energy of the Mount St. Helens volcanic explosion last year, he
said.
    
ap-ny-12-12 2041EST
**********
-------

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

Date: 14 December 1981 02:06-EST
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Beam weapons, comments from Access to Energy
To: SPACE at MIT-MC, ARMS-D at MIT-MC

     The December 1981 issue of Access to Energy deals with beam weapons.
It may or may not turn out to be practical, but you don't know until you
try.  The following is a quote from AtE.

  Only two years ago one could find articles explaining why atmospheric
  absorption would preclude particle beams.  These forecasts (as near as
  we can tell from the open literature) have proved wrong; not because
  any physical laws have been broken, but for lack of experience with
  an energy threshold where other factors come into play.

  There have been such cases where just a little experimental physics,
  or the lack of it, considerably affected warfare.

  The secret invention of radar was not only decisive in the Battle of
  Britain (the entire tiny RAF fighter force always intercepted the
  Luftwaffe squadrons wherever they chose to approach), but it also
  revealed to the British that very short radio waves will propagate
  well beyond the horizon, rudely overruling contemporary physics and
  engineering textbooks.  Again, no physical laws were broken, but the
  texts had failed to take account of a tiny, but decisive (refractive)
  effect of the atmosphere.  The British used this effect in 1941 to
  bomb Berlin at night, through clouds, for unknown to the Germans,
  Berlin (and Western Europe) was covered by a navigational net spun
  from signals emitted by radio beacons in Britain.  They were received
  on board British aircraft by the grandfather of today's electronic
  navigation, the "G-box", tuned to the then stunningly high frequency
  of 50 MHz (the band of today's commercial TV channels).

  The G-boxes had a detonator to destroy their most secret ingredients
  on impact, but it failed to explode on one of the planes shot down,
  and the Germans appointed a commission to top experts to investigate
  the puzzle.

  "We couldn't make head or tail of it", one of its members told this
  writer some years after the war.  "But we unanimously concluded that
  it was something for training purposes only, because it was easy
  enough to determine the frequency to which the receiver was tuned,
  and we all 'knew' that such short waves could not possibly propagate
  beyond the transmitter's horizon."

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

Date: 14 Dec 1981 0217-EST
From: HPM at CMU-20C
Subject: Ultimate strengths
To: foner at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC
cc: hm60 at CMU-10A

Actually there are several "ultimate" limits.  I was talking about
normal, earth surface, conditions where all the interaction
between atoms happens amongst the outer electrons.  The characteristic
energies are a few electron volts per atom.  These few evs are
the inter-atomic glue in materials, and what is liberated in
energetic reactions.  If you messed with the inner electrons, that
would jump to tens of ev,  nuclear energies are in the millions of ev,
and total conversion of mass to energy gets you billions to tens of
billions of ev per atom.

With normal chemistry and materials science you get to tap only the
one or two evs, the rest of the atom is essentially dead weight.
As it happens, it takes tens of ev to lift even light atoms out
of earths potential well, and this is what makes high mass ratios
in rockets and cables or towers necessary: It takes the energy of tens
of atoms to get just one to escape.  It much easier on the moon, where
a few ev per atom suffices, and much harder on the bigger planets.  It
takes hundred of ev to get an atom off jupiter, and a simple chemical
rocket would have to have an astronomical mass ratio (but nuclear
could work).

	Back to earth-normal:  the ultimate strength of normal substances
can be calculated by looking at the in-lattice bond strength between
adjacent atoms, and dividing by the atom's mass.  A real chunk of matter
would achieve this strength only if all the atoms in it were so bonded
in the direction of the stress, and if the stress were perfectly uniformly
distributed over all the bonds.  Normal engineering materials blow it
on both counts. Grain boundaries and other lattice defects create both
some inferior bonds, and cause stress to be concentrated unevenly.
The overstressed regions break long before the rest of the material
reaches its limits, but then the load is passed to what's left, and
it all breaks. Perfect single crystals with smooth surfaces can exhibit
nearly the theoretical strengths, however, and a lot of this is retained
in bulk materials when single crystals are bonded together in a soft
matrix (often metal) which distributes the stress among them pretty
evenly.

	A nice intuitive way to express the strength to weight ratio
of a material is called "characteristic length".  It is the length
of material fashioned into a constant cross-section rope that can
just support itself when hung from one end in a uniform one earth
gravity field. (The formula is  tensile-strength/(density*1g)).
Graphite, with its strong covalent carbon-carbon bonds is the best
actually existing material. Its theoretical characteristic length
is several thousand km.  A metastable metallic version of hydrogen
that can exist at room temperature might be quite a bit better
because hydrogen has much less dead weight, but its existence is
only conjectured.

	Later editions of the CRC handbook have a NASA originated
table labelled "Mechanical and Physical Properties of Whiskers".
The indicated whiskers are actual laboratory grown, millimeter
length, single crystal rods of various substances, whose strength
and density can be measured.  The measured properties give the
following characteristic lengths:

	Graphite whiskers	961 km
	Al2O3 whiskers		527 km
	Iron whiskers		162 km
	Si3N4 whiskers		455 km
	SiC whiskers		704 km
	Si whiskers		337 km

These numbers are about 1/5 to 1/10 of the theoretical limits for the
substances.

By comparison we have todays engineering materials:

	Bulk aluminum		  10 km
        Bulk iron		  11 km
	Bulk steel		  40 km
	Nylon			  88 km
	Fiberglass		  98 km
	Kevlar			 195 km

As stated in my previous message, a strength five times that of Kevlar
would make earth elevator cables of varoius varieties possible. This
means a characteristic length of about 1000 km; a bulk material with
the graphite whisker strength above would do fine.
-------

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

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

15-Dec-81  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #60   
Date: 15 Dec 1981 0303-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #60

To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 60

Today's Topics:
			 Laser launch systems    
			   Sub Orbital Launch 
			   Skyhook Stability  
		    Linear accelerators as launchers. 
		    interest rates & launching lasers
		       specific thrust of materials
			     Cables in space
				 the Gap
		    interest rates & launching lasers
			     Elevators, fuel
			     Ultimate limits
			     Shuttle's wings
		 Shuttle's and laser launching system   
			 laser launching systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 1981 0724-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Laser launch systems    
To:   space at MIT-MC  


Although there does seem to be some similar points between laser weapons
and a launch system, the launch system is far more practical.  Certain
advantages are as follows:

1)	Launch from a high elevation.  This decreases fuel costs but, more
	importantly, decreases the amount of atmosphere you have to punch
	through.

2)	Launch in good, calm, weather.  You can take your time when launching,
	just as shipmasters of old did.  Keep a shuttle in reserve for an
	all weather transport.

3)	Use several lasers (which can be time-shared between different payloads)
	for launching.  This reduces the need for a continous beam from a
	single laser.

4)	Use different pathways for the laser beams.  If the beams are firing in
	burst mode, then this reduces the effects of blooming considerably.

5)	Use a nuclear power plant, selling excess power to the electric grid.
	This is actually a far more cost effective idea than most of the
	comments so far indicate.  For instance, launch only during the
	night - that way the power demand curve is evened out, and little
	extra costs are incurred.  Use the day for repairs.  It also gives
	you fantastic night launchings if you can see the beam!

The ideal site would be in southern US or Mexico, hooked into a large
power grid, at a high elevation and with clear, calm weather at night.
Any suggestions from folks down thataway?

Jim

PS  Note that while I am more confident that the system would work,
    I am still not totally convinced.  Any document out there with
    hard, crunchy, numbers?

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

Date: 14 Dec 1981 0725-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Sub Orbital Launch 
To:   space at MIT-MC  


An interesting article appeared in ANALOG magazine a year or so ago
on sub orbital launching.  Throw something up into the air at relatively
low speed.  In near space it encounters a linear accelerator which
transfers momentum from itself to the payload, placing it in orbit.
The accelerator itself stays in orbit either via ion drive, solar
sails, or momentum transfer from incoming payloads to earth.

Couple this with a laser launch system and you have a more effective
combination.  We could do it in a 10-15 year time frame (it all
depends on how big you want the facility).  Will we have a beanstalk
by then?  Probably not due to the greater materials (in technology and
volume) requirements of the latter - you will need an accelerator in
order to develope space sufficiently in order to let you get anywhere
with skyhooks.

Jim

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

Date: 14 Dec 1981 0734-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Skyhook Stability  
To:   space at MIT-MC  


There appear to be large technical problems with skyhook stability due
to two factors.  First, the skyhook is vertically unstable.  That is,
small displacements will not tend to be corrected.  I do not believe there
is a similar horizontial stability problem, but there is another difficulty
due to the fact that a skyhook is a very long and thin structure, with
the primary strength criteria for construction being compression, not
shear.  If the structure suffers a horizontial shock, then the energy
will be transmitted as a wave throughout the structure, potentially
causing a lot of damage.

First, are my fears grounded?  Second, can we get materials that have
both compression and shear characteristics we want?  Finally, can we
use feedback in order to dampen some of these problems (remember that the
speed of light is a serious limitation here).

Jim

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

Date: 14 Dec 1981 0741-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Linear accelerators as launchers. 
To:   space at MIT-MC
CC:   jpm at SU-AI  

The real problem faced by any linear accelerator used in a orbital launch system
is that all practical lengths lead to rather large accelerations.  This is due
to the fact that for a given length (l) and required final velocity (v) the
average acceleration is v^2/2/l.  Plugging in some sample numbers we have low
earth orbital speed of 8 km/s, and say our accelerator is 10 km long.  This
gives an acceleration of 320g.  This is unacceptably high for people and other
relatively fragile cargo.  Note that the laser scheme mentioned recently had
and acceleration of 10g for 90 seconds.  This gives a length of 400 km.  This
still causes soem problems but you don't have to build a track thats 400 km
long.
	Ted Anderson

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

Date:     14 December 1981 1144-cst
From:     Bill Vaughan               <VaughanW at HI-Multics>
Subject:  interest rates & launching lasers
To:       POURNE at MC, Leavitt at USC-ISI
Cc:       SPACE at MC, VaughanW

Whether you set the generator up in Baja or Utah is probably immaterial.
The fact remains that the utility buying your excess power is going to
have to accept a 100% reduction whenever you want to launch a
spacecraft.  That means you are not selling that utility any base load;
you are selling peaking power - so the customer will only buy it when it
is needed, not the rest of the time.  Your power plant will actually be
producing salable power less than 25% of the time.  This will reduce
return on investment substantially.
     As far as equity taking the place of interest: this is true only to
the extent you can convince investors that their equity will increase
at a rate greater than the interest rate.  (By the way, those investors
are precisely the venture capitalists that Leavitt advocates avoiding.
?? )  It is true that the American investor is a perennial sucker, but
will they go for this?  Maybe - if you can produce a convincing (and
nonfraudulent) prospectus.
      Anyway, my only point was that financing costs would be greater
than fuel costs. I still think that's true.

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

Date: 14 Dec 1981 1452-CST
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: specific thrust of materials
To: space at MIT-MC

What Hans neglected to explicate in his reply concerned how one
determines what theoretical thrust is.  The basic information is
partly there already, but some dummies like me might not be able to
piece it together.  I shall not pretend to be as facile as he is with
the numbers (or the physics) but here is a sketch of the limitations.

Thrust is determined by the velocity and mass of the combustion
products; velocity is determined by (combustion) temperature as well
as the molecular weight of the exhaust products.  Therefore, the
higher the temperature, the higher the thrust (in chemical reactions,
of course, the mass is constant).  With each fuel/oxidant combination,
one can determine the temperature at which the combustion products
decompose (e.g., water -> hydrogen + oxygen at around 3,000K as I
recall) in an endothermic reaction -- which reduces temperature, hence
exhaust velocity.

As it turns out, hydrogen is the best possible chemical fuel; as an
expert would put it, it has the highest possible "specific thrust"
(probably has something to do with its binding energy, resulting from
chemical reactions within the innermost electronic shell, which Hans
was talking about).  Therefore, a hydrogen-burning engine operating at
3,000K is as good as you can possibly get in principle; the Shuttle
engines approach this limit, thus we are near the theoretical limit
w.r.t. chemical engines.
-------

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

Date: 14 Dec 1981 13:43 PST
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Cables in space
To: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60), space at MIT-MC
cc: Wedekind.es

	Thanks for a clear explanation of some of the technical issues re space
cables. To reiterate, the figure I gave in my original question for the minimum
characteristic length (~3k mi) of any potential cable material is all wet, because
it assumed no tapering. 
	
	I was next going to bring up coriolis forces on the cargo and atmospheric
turbulence but first I better get ejukated.. please tell me what references you
have besides the Clarke and Sheffield books.

				Jerry 

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

Date: 14 Dec 1981 1623-PST
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-AI>
Subject: the Gap
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: dist at SRI-UNIX

!n067  1530  14 Dec 81
BC-G(Newhouse 006)
By PATRICK YOUNG
Newhouse News Service
    WASHINGTON - Four astronomers think they have found a great cosmic
hole largely devoid of galaxies in a place so far from Earth that
light takes more than 360 million years to bridge the gulf.
    The gap itself isn't what has surprised their fellow scientists.
It's the size that has astronomers, cosmologists and astrophysicists
puzzled.
    ''Since we see large clusters of galaxies, one would expect to see
gaps,'' says David Schramm of the University of Chicago.
    The area is some 300 million light-years - roughly 18 quadrillion
miles - in diameter and 180 million light-years deep. (A light-year
is the distance light travels in a year, or about 5.9 trillion miles.)
    A gap that big doesn't fit easily into current thinking.
    ''Existing theories of the distribution of matter in the universe
can't quite explain the discovery,'' says John Huckra of the
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass. ''There is
still some doubt whether it is real.''
    But if the gap is real - and new work suggests it is - it should
provide a deeper understanding of how galaxies formed some 1.5
billion years after the birth of the universe. It may even shed some
new light on the Big Bang itself, that gigantic explosion believed to
have begun the universe we know some 10 billion to 20 billion years
ago.
    The universe is populated by galaxies, which tend to cluster
together. These galaxy clusters also tend to be grouped into what are
called superclusters. In between are vast regions of space containing
little matter.
    ''We would like to know how galaxies and galaxy clusters formed,''
says Robert Kirshner of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, a
member of the team that discovered the gap.
    ''At the beginning, we think, everything was homogeneous with matter
evenly distributed. Somehow we have to account for how the structure
of the universe formed. If we understand how this structure grew from
early times to present, we could infer what happened at the
beginning.''
    Until now, the largest known gap was about 60 million light-years
across. The new gap appears five times larger, and it takes up far
more space than the largest known supercluster of galaxies.
    The new hole was discovered by Kirshner, Augustus Oemler Jr. of Yale
University, Paul L. Schechter of the Kitt Peak National Observatory
in Arizona, and Stephen A. Shectman of the Mt. Wilson and Las
Campanas Observatories in Pasadena, Calif.
    The four, using telescopes at Kitt Peak, the Smithsonian's Whipple
Observatory in Arizona and Mt. Palomar in California, were conducting
a survey to determine the distance of galaxies far from Earth. They
were able to observe galaxies up to 40,000 times fainter than the
naked eye can see.
    The hole was inferred from three samples of galaxies that formed a
triangle in the area of the constellation Bootes. In each sample, the
gap began about 360 million light-years away and continued outward to
540 million light-years. Preliminary results from more than 100 areas
studied within that triangle has since supported the gap's existence.
    Viewed from Earth, the patch of sky appears small. ''If you hold a
garbage can lid up at arm's length, it's that big a piece of the
sky,'' Kirshner says.
    But because the region is so far away, the hole actually represents
about 1 percent of the observable universe. Thousands of galaxies
should be found there. Yet the four astronomers find 10 times fewer
than expected.
    ''To have found a population density of less than three times
average would have been a rare find,'' Schechter says. ''But finding
that the density is about 10 times less than the average is
exceedingly hard to understand.''
    The gap intrigues scientists trying to fathom the birth and
evolution of the universe, for it goes to some basic issues in
cosmology. Although matter does clump in galaxies and galaxy
clusters, overall the material of the universe is evenly distributed.
    ''Two of the most fundamental questions in cosmology today are: Why,
on the large scale, is the universe so smooth; and why, on the small
scale, is it so bumpy,'' Schramm says.
    Kirshner and his colleagues continue to investigate whether matter
might exist in the gap in some form other than normal galaxies. Two
unlikely possibilities are as great clouds of gas or as unusually
tiny, faint galaxies, making the gap a ''place where all the galaxies
are pygmies.''
    ''That in itself would be surprising,'' Kirshner says.
BJ END YOUNG
    
nyt-12-14-81 1831est
**********
-------

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

Date: 15 December 1981 03:55-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: interest rates & launching lasers
To: VaughanW at HI-MULTICS
cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, VAUGHANW at MIT-MC,
    Leavitt at USC-ISI

It seems clear to me that one could launch on off-hours, or
otherwise schedule to the convenience of customers for power.  I
see no reason at all why clever scheduling cannot manage to sell
a lot of power and simultaneously get a lot of stuff into orbit.
Example: an electric furnace steel plant, given the low cost of
labor in certain areas, plus a break on power, might well forgoe
the third shift, leaving one shift for launch and two for
selling power to a steel plant; or, if I can assure you I'll
deliver your power during the hours of 8Am to 8PM, you're likely
to buy; and I'll have 12 for launching.
	I fail to understand why we must have a rigidly
scheduled system. Unless, as Alex points out, we can't launch at
night because you can't see where you're going...

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

Date: 15 December 1981 0410-EST (Tuesday)
From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  Elevators, fuel
CC: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A

Re skyhook stability - The anchored kind is VERY stable vertically -
after it is constructed the bottom end is anchored to the ground,
and the top end (as much as 70,000 miles beyond synchronous orbit)
is ballasted with a counterweight which tries to escape centrifugally,
and puts the entire cable at design tension.  When a payload travels
on the part of the cable below synch orbit, its weight (decreasing as
the payload rides up into lower g, higher centrifugal heights) merely
removes some of the load on the anchor - the cable above the load feels
no change in the forces on it, the cable below the payload has its
bias stress temporarily lessened.  Coriolis forces are also
no problem - they just cause the cable to lean a tiny bit. Careful
payload scheduling can minimize the long term induced sway.
The cable is so thin for its length that payloads simply thrusting
up and down on it cause no material shear forces to speak of - just
a little local bowing.  Unlike a weight on a taught catenary, the
anchored skyhook is a constant tension system. Resonances are another
issue; Pearson's first two papers in the reference list below conclude
that all serious oscillations can be easily avoided. Some ascent/descent
speeds excite resonances, but if you accelerate through those speeds
quickly, the vibrations don't have time to build up.

Re hydrogen/oxygen as the best chemical fuel - actually hydrogen/fluorine
is a little better. The HF reaction product is heaver than the H2O of
the shuttle's engines, but the greater reaction energy more than makes
up for it.  Of course both the fuel and the exhaust vapor are very
unpleasant to man and machine - and the reaction is very hot.  Still
its one of the major fuels used in high power chemical lasers.
The very highest specific impulse from a chemical reaction undoubtedly
comes from the recombination of atomic hydrogen.  H + H -> H2  both
liberates a lot of energy and has a very light, thus high velocity
for the energy, reaction product.  Storing the monatomic hydrogen
until it's needed represents a still unsolved packaging problem, however.
Possibly the hypothetical metastable metallic hydrogen is an answer
to this problem too.

Here are the elevator references requested:

Y. Artsutanov, V Kosmos na Elektrovoze (To the Cosmos by Funicular Railway),
Komsomolskaya Pravda, July 31, 1960
(contents described in Lvov, Science 158, p 946, November 17, 1967).

J.D. Isaacs, A.C. Vine, H. Bradner, G.E. Bachus, Satellite Elongation
into a True "Sky-Hook", Science 151 p 682, February 11, 1966 and 152,
p 800, May 6, 1966.

Y. Artsutanov, (The Cosmic Wheel), Znanije-Sile (Knowledge is Power)
No. 7  p 25, 1969.

J. Pearson, The Orbital Tower: A Spacecraft Launcher Using the Earth's
Rotational Energy, Acta Astronautica 2, p 785,  September/October 1975.

J. Pearson, Using The Orbital Tower to Launch Earth Escape Payloads Daily,
27'th IAF Congress, Anaheim, Ca., October 1976. AIAA paper IAF 76-123.

J. Pearson, Anchored Lunar Satellites for Cis-Lunar Transportation
and Communication, European Conference on Space Settlements and Space
Industries, London, England, September 20, 1977. in Journal of the
Astronautical Sciences.

H.P. Moravec, A Non-Synchronous Orbital Skyhook, 23rd AIAA
Meeting, The Industrialization of Space, San Francisco, Ca., October
18-20, 1977, also Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 25,
October-December, 1977.

J. Pearson, Lunar Anchored Satellite Test, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Conference,
Palo Alto, Ca., August 7-9, 1978, AIAA paper 78-1427.

H.P. Moravec, Skyhook!, L5 News, August 1978.

H.P. Moravec, Cable Cars in the Sky, in The Endless Frontier, Vol. 1,
Jerry Pournelle, ed., Grosset & Dunlap, Ace books, November 1979, pp. 301-322.

R.L. Forward and H.P. Moravec,  High Wire Act, Omni, Omni publications
international, New York, July 1981, pp. 44-47.

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

Date: 15 December 1981 04:56-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Ultimate limits
To: FONER at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

Ultimat limits to matter: 42

Reference: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...

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

Date: 15 December 1981 05:05-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle's wings
To: David.Smith at CMU-10A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

But can't they always land on Easter Island...??

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

Date: 15 December 1981 05:10-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle's and laser launching system	
To: BRUC at MIT-ML
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Art Kantrowitz is the new Chairman of the L-5 Society and will
be writing on laser launch systems for the L-5 News.
(Subscribe by sending $20 to L-5 1060 E Elm Tucson AZ 85719)

(I don't get paid nothing nohow for L-5 News)

	NASA has a decision to make: operate stuff, or develop
advanced technology?  There's a conflict.  Worth thinking about.

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

Date: 15 December 1981 05:11-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: laser launching systems
To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

After all, there are people who believe the Earth is flat; znd I
expect that gunpowder weapons were "controversial" for a long
time, especially amongst experienced pikemen./

You want to be your life on Tsipis, go ahead.

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

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

16-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #61   
Date: 16 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #61
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 61

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Linear accelerators as launchers. 
				 Skyhooks
		      Planetary Science in extremis
		    A few more comments on skyhooks   
		     multiple-laser launching systems
				Spaceports
			   Elevators into Space
			       Momentum   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Dec 1981 0855-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Re: Linear accelerators as launchers. 
To: ota at S1-A
cc: space at MIT-MC

My original message only assumed that accelerators be used as the
"second stage", ie you get them up to suborbital speed and then
accelerate them to orbital velocity.

I did a short linear search of my library, but could not find the
article.  Any pointers from out there?

I think the correct equation to use here is 2*A*L = Vf^2 - Vi^2 (Vf =
final velocity, Vi = initial velocity).  Then if we keep a= 100m/s^2
(10g), then we have for a final velociy of 8km/s (a couple of hundred
miles up), then we have

                  L                        Vi
                
                1 km                    7.93 km/sec
                10 km                   7.87 km/sec
                50 km                   7.32 km/sec
                80 km                   6.93 km/sec
                125 km                  6.24 km/sec
                200 km                  4.89 km/sec

If we let A = 100g, then we get 


                1 km                    7.87 km/sec
                5 km                    7.32 km/sec
                10 km                   6.63 km/sec
                20 km                   4.89 km/sec

So we would need on the order of tens of thousands rings in order
to accelerate from about 5km/sec.  Two conclusions can be drawn -
you want this system first for mass transport, not person transport,
and it is easier to build than a skyhook by a couple of orders of
magnitude.  Thus it does appear to be an interesting step between
rockets (or even lasers) and skyhooks.

Jim

-------

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

Date: 15 Dec 1981 0917-PST
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Skyhooks
To: space at MIT-MC

Hans - thanks for the references.

Re skyhook stability - my comment on vertical stability was meant
as a comment on principle - ie that you do have to be careful
(ie anchor it, prevent the payload/structure mass from getting too high,
etc...), and that puts greater demands on the engineering (it also
sets you up for diasters - say you lose your space anchor - then
the beanstalk comes crashing down)

Once again, on the shear forces I was not so much thinking of
operational problems, but potential diasters - like someone slamming
into it in a passanger plane.  The problem is that such diasters
WILL happen, and that the potential loss of such an expensive
structure in one will deter people from building them unless the
engineering and safty precautions are VERY good.  Thus I do not
expect skyhooks within 20 years - more like 20 to 50 years (ie
after we have a lot of space engineering experience and experience
building VERY large structures).

Jim

-------

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

Date: 15 Dec 1981 1222-EST
From: MPH at MIT-XX
Subject: Planetary Science in extremis
To: space at mc

This is an excerpt from an article in the December 18 issue of Science,
"Planetary Science /in extremis/." Copyright AAAS, 1981.

[Start of excerpt]
The office of Management and Budget (OMB) wants the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration to virtually cease its planetary exploration
activities as of fiscal year 1983.  The order was given to the space agency
privately on 24 November.

Although NASA will undoubtedly appeal the decision and try to negotiate a
compromise, it has little time.  The FY1983 budget must be ready for
submission to Congress in January.

The OMB proposal, as it stands, includes the cancellation of the Galileo
orbiter/probe mission to Jupiter, which is already nearly built, and the
Venus orbiting imaging radar (VOIR), which had been penciled into budget
projections as a new start for 1984.  The only mission that will /not/ be
affected is Voyager 2, now on its way toward encounters with Uranus and
Neptune.
[End of excerpt]

-------

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

Date: 15 Dec 1981 1017-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: A few more comments on skyhooks   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Note that a skyhook that looses its earth surface anchor doesn't fall
down it falls UP.

As to safety, I would like to emphasize here that a structure that is some
100,000 Kilometers long and weighs millions of tons is not likely to be
inconvenienced by some thing as trivial as a C-5A running into it at 500
MPH.  Though I don't deny that it might be possible to design a
geosynchronous skyhook that would fail in this situation I think it would
be hard to do.  Keep in mind that it needs a strength reserve (strength in
excess of that needed to maintain static equilibrium) to support the
lifting of, say, a million tons per year to GEO or it wouldn't have been
built in the first place.  It is not likely to be a fragile object.

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

Date: 15 Dec 1981 1317-CST
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: multiple-laser launching systems
To: space at MIT-MC

As for JP's comment, I wasn't trying to nastily dampen enthusiasm for
getting out there SOMEHOW, it just doesn't/didn't look like riding a
laser beam thru the atmosphere would be viable.  Question-raisers are
not always enemies: maybe some are just ignorant friends willing to
risk appearing like fools if it will stimulate discussion/learning.
Or maybe I AM a fool, but a flat-worlder I am not!

The multiple-beam answer to blooming is certainly thought-provoking.
Each beam runs into the same problems I raised before, only (it is
hoped) at a manageably small level.  Ohmic heating will still take
place, albeit to a smaller extent, and the air in the beam path will
still expand.  Argument: the beam will be off before the expansion
gets going good.  Counter-point: yeah, but the NEXT time the beam
comes on the air will be in its expanding/ed state, and the next, and
the next...  Argument: well, the beam path will have moved (following
the launch vehicle).  Counter-point: but not always significantly; at
sufficient distances and angles of incidence (beam path to vehicle
trajectory) the movement will be small, approaching zero -- especially
toward the laser end, where motion is minimized, hence ohmic heating
and consequent beam dispersion is maximized where its effects are
least desired (farthest from the target).

So we have the following variables: number of lasers (affecting the
pulse length and beam deflection between pulses, hence ohmic heating
potential); how widespread they are (affecting the extent to which
they tend to share a common beam path, i.e., appear in effect like a
single beam); how high they are (how much air they have to punch
thru); and of course their individual power output & frequency.
Without the expertise to run the numbers, I still suspect that
inefficiencies at the target will require a large total beam power,
which will require a LOT of (expensive?) lasers if the average per
beam is to be kept sufficiently low.  If high laser altitude and large
numbers of them are also necessary, it will take LOTS of mountains to
get around the path-sharing problem.  Dispersing the lasers also tends
to increase the laser-to-target distances (through the air).

By the way, the hull of this vehicle is gonna have to ba a damn good
mirror, lest it be subject to melting; what happens to the reflected
energy?  Does anybody REALLY want to watch this thing go up??

Cheers.
-Jonathan
-------

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

Date: 15 December 1981 2202-EST (Tuesday)
From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  Spaceports
CC: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A


The orbiting linear accelerator article (I thought both the article
and the idea were extremely good) was

Roger D. Arnold and Donald Kingsbury,  The Spaceport,
Part 1: Analog v99 #11  November 1979  pp 48:67  and
Part 2: Analog v99 #12  December 1979  pp 61:77

They propose an accelerator length of 600 km subjecting payloads to
5g, with an active stiffening system on the structure.  Neither the
mass nor the complexity is obviously lower than a cable performing
the same task:  Imagine a cable in low earth orbit that spins in
the plane of the orbit so that the spin just cancels the orbital
velocity at the points where the cable tips come closest to the ground.
The cable is like two spokes of a giant wheel that is rolling on the
earth's surface at orbital speed.  A flying machine can now jump
up and grab the cable end at its lowest and slowest point (for a few
seconds the tip is actually stationary with respect to the ground,
just like the portion of the rim of a rolling wheel in contact with the
ground is momentarily stopped).  The cable can actually enter the
atmosphere (and with terminal guidance and high precision, it could
even kiss the ground), so the job of docking with it is simpler than for
the linear accelerator spaceport.  The payload then hangs on to the end,
and lets the cable flip it around to be flung off at high velocity
later.  At the top of the swing the cable tip is moving at twice
the (orbital) velocity of the cable's center of mass, and if the
payload lets go then, it is sent off with a factor of more that sqrt(2)
beyond escape velocity.  The cable loses some orbital momentum in the
process, wich it can regain from incoming payloads, or high specific
impulse engines at its middle, just like the orbiting linac.

Such a non-anchored skyhook can be build low and spinning fast,
or long and orbiting high and turning slow.  If you build one
to orbit at synchronous height, it has most of the properties of
the synchronous beanstalk.  It turns out that there is a lower
orbit which is optimum in the sense that it minimizes the taper
required by the cable.  The length of such an optimum cable is
one third the diameter of the earth (this is a general principle;
cute, huh?).  So we have the cable about 4000 km long, with its
center orbiting 2000 km above the surface.  With a material
that can make a beanstalk with a taper of 100, we can make an
optimum rolling cable like this with a taper of only 10, using
100 times less material for the same payload capacity.  The
rolling cable can hoist 1/50 of its own mass on each touchdown.
Such touchdowns happen every 20 minutes, in succession at six
equally spaced points around the orbit.  The cable is very long
relative to the depth of the atmosphere, and because of the scale
and the cycloidal shape of the tip trajectory, the cable ends
appear to descend from the sky vertically on each touchdown, with
a continuous upward acceleration of 1.4 g.  They stab downwards into the
atmosphere at a tame 2 km/sec, slow to a dead stop for an instant at
their lowest point, and accelerate gently upwards to leave in the same
way. The tip stays in the atmosphere five minutes each touchdown.

The material of the cable (if graphite) has a tensile strength of
at least 3 million pounds per square inch, so one or two square inches
at the cable ends is certainly sufficient for most tasks. The average
cross section would then be about five square inches.  This gives
the whole rolling skyhook somewhat the scale and geometry of a
typical transatlantic telephone cable, except that the graphite
is five times less massive than the copper and steel of the phone cable.

It seems at least possibly cheaper to me than the accelerator, but cost
analyses would have to decide.  The big advantage of the accelerator
is that it can be engineered entirely with known materials and techniques,
while the cable awaits the next increment in high strength materials.

Re: collisions with aircraft, I agree that most of the time a taut 
3 million psi, inch diameter, cable would be to a slow moving aluminum
plane much like a cheese cutter is to a piece of cheese.  Almost all
of the cable is above the atmosphere, however, and a collision at orbital
velocity would be another matter.  The hit probability is no greater
than for a big satellite. The rolling cable is 4000 km long and about
5 cm in diameter.  This gives it the same "frontal" surface area as
a 500 meter diameter sphere.  A collision would not be much of a disaster
on the ground, because the small cable diameter insures that the
cables burns up on reentry (though the sheet of flame across the sky as
several thousand kms burn simultaneously should be interesting).  Still
the cost to the owner (or insurance) and to the payload on the cable
at the time certainly make this event undesirable.  Some kind of
Norad (or coast guard) traffic control or monitoring would seem
worthwhile.  Given a few hours or days warning a skyhook can dodge
a few kilometers, but it will probably be the least maneuverable
object in earth orbit.  It will probably have to be given right of way
most of the time, just as law of the sea gives oil tankers right of way.

Here are a few more skyhook references:

Arthur C. Clarke, The Fountains of Paradise,
    Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1978.

Charles Sheffield, The Web Between the Worlds, Ace SF, 1979.

Charles Sheffield, How to Build a Beanstalk,
    Destinies Vol 1 #4, Aug-Sep 79, pp 41:68,  Ace books.

Charles Sheffield, Skystalk, Destinies Vol 1 #4, Aug-Sep 79, pp 7:39

Charles Sheffield, Summertide, Destinies Vol 3 #2, Aug 81, pp 16:84

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

Date: 15 Dec 1981 22:29:14-PST
From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley
To: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: Elevators into Space

Correct me if I'm wrong, but might there be a problem with the fact that
the Elevator is pulling a lot of mass into space against friction?

As you pull the mass up, you give it momentum, and you thus give some downward
momentum to the tower itself.  All the momentum should be conserved at the end,
but you keep pouring energy into the elevator which gets used up as friction,
and the tower is a little bit lower every time.  Perhaps the friction is very low,
but over the whole 35,000 km it could add up.

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

Date: 15 Dec 1981 2338-PST
From: HPM at S1-A
Subject: Momentum   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

No, such momentum loss is not a problem.  The anchored cable-ballast system
is ultra stable and self correcting - it is a weight at the end of a
long string attached to an unstoppable spinning turntable.  Any
momentum loss by the cable (which must be by dropping off or picking
up mass - as you say momentum is conserved in a closed system) causes
the cable to lean forward or lag backward behind its anchor position.
Its force vector is then no longer along a radius of the earth, but
has a tangential component.  This component taps the earth's
angular momentum, a tiny fraction of which transfers itself to the
cable until it straightens out again (this needs damping, otherwise
you just get a 100,000km pendulum!).  By riding loads up far beyond
synchronous orbit you can actually get net energy from the system -
centrifugal force will launch payloads for you, with energy that
is drawn from the rotational energy of the earth.

      The non-synchronous rolling cable is on its own, however,
and any momentum it loses in launching payloads must be
regained sooner or later by landing other ones, or operating thrusters
(or sails? what a kludge that would be), else the cable crashes.

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

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

17-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #62   
Date: 17 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #62
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 62

Today's Topics:
		     Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
			      Skyhook Safety
			    Reluctant skyhooks
		   Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
		   Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
		   Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
		       A few technical quibbles...
		       Project Orion and relatives
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #61
			Checkoff on your tax form
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 1981 1247-PST
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
To: lrc.slocum at UTEXAS-20
cc: space at MIT-MC


Good argument on the multiple-beam suggestion except that you did not
consider the most general case.  ie in reply to:

	Argument: well, the beam path will have moved (following the
	launch vehicle).  Counter-point: but not always significantly;
	at sufficient distances and angles of incidence (beam path to
	vehicle trajectory) the movement will be small, approaching
	zero -- especially toward the laser end, where motion is
	minimized, hence ohmic heating and consequent beam dispersion
	is maximized where its effects are least desired (farthest
	from the target).

I point out that the beam path changes because the payload has moved
(although if you send it straight up for some stupid reason this does
not have to be true) AND because you switch the origin of the beam!
ie you have a single laser with a complicated mirror system that
allows you to quickly redirect the beam to any one of several "firing
windows" on the ground.  These windows can be separated by hundreds of
meters.  The whole time the beam is under ground you keep it in
vaccum.  Now the beam can follw QUITE different paths, even if the
payload it being launched straight up!  And the heating of the air
near the firing windows is a rather small problem if the (relaxation
time needed for air to return to normal)/(number of firing windows you
use) is a small number.

The actual numbers you use here depend upon the relaxation time, the
degree of complexity of your mirror system (and cost) and the capability
of your central laser(s).  Cost factors are difficult, but perhaps
someone could come up with that relaxation time and the laser design
(ie you can have a continous laser swapping between windows or a
laser which can send out bursts very quickly).

Jim

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

Date: 16 Dec 1981 1332-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Skyhook Safety
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: ota at S1-A, moravec at CMU-10A


I am still not really certain about skyhook safety.  Remember, that
plane crashing into a skyhook (which would have a diameter on the
order of meters at most) at 500 mph would easily snap it if a
significant portion of the construction material could not take the
shear forces (thus potentially increasing the stress on the rest of
this weakened section).  I even think that you could manage to
completely shear through the stalk with a single accident if the
diameter was a few meters.

Which brings me back to my original question: granted we can get
materials with high compression strength, can they also handle shear
forces like that?  If my understanding of the present state of the art
in materials sciences is correct, these materials with great
compression strength are not equally impressive in handling shear
forces.  Even if the material had the strength of steel, there could
still be serious consequences as the result of an accident with a
plane in low "orbit" (ie close to the ground, where the diameter of
the skyhook is also the smallest).  Such an accident could lose you
the stalk (and yes, most of it will fall up - but I do not anticipate
that to harm many people (unless they are on the stalk at the time) -
the section falling down could cause damage in the immediate
vicinityof the anchoring).

All this does not mean you cannot build a stalk - only that the
engineering problems with such a structure should not be
underestimated.  Which is why I do not think they are the natural step
after shuttle/laser launch, but that rather some orbital accelerator
concept will be implemented first.

Jim

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

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

Date: 16 December 1981 1743-EST (Wednesday)
From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60)
To: McGrath at SU-AI, Space at MIT-MC
Subject:  Reluctant skyhooks

It may be that a skyhook is harder to sell, but the reason, methinks,
is its strange and unusual nature, not the technical difficulties -
people haven't had a generation to ruminate the concept yet.  Heavier
than air flight seemed that way in the late 19th century, and
interplanetary rockets must have seemed like pure lunacy in 1915.
Arthur Clarke suggests that the idea will become a reality twenty years
after people stop laughing.

Since you bring up Mars, by the way, it's nice to realize that Mars
is the best nontrivial place in the solar system to build a synchronous
skyhook, since it both rotates quickly, and has a shallow gravity well.
Any kind of skyhook for Mars can be made of steel, and is a piece of
cake with Kevlar.

As for shear strength under side impacts note that these days Kevlar
is the only material considered for bullet proof clothing. A quarter
inch of Kevlar weave will stop anything fired from a handgun.

another reference:

NASA technical memorandum TM-75174,
G. Polyakov, A Space "Necklace" About the Earth.
(translation of "Kosicheskoye 'Ozhere'ye' Zemli " in
Teknika Molodezhi, No. 4, 197, pp. 41-43)

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

Date: 16 Dec 1981 1703-CST
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
To: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE
cc: space at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 16-Dec-81 1447-CST

Re: beam path, I was considering each laser INDIVIDUALLY.  The origin
of a particular beam does not change (by definition; I'm talking about
the location of a "nozzle", whatever its realization).  Consider: a
laser fires, then shuts off while others are firing; sooner or later,
it must fire again.  Through the same air that it fired thru before?
It depends on the diameter of the beam, the displacement of the nozzle
end since last fired, and the change in angular displacement to the
target.  If the nozzle moves less than the beam diameter, the beam is
guaranteed to pass through at least some of the same air as last time.
Then, the smaller the change in angular displacement, the more "old"
air seen by the beam.  No matter how you distribute the nozzles,
angular displacement will decrease with increasing target distance --
increasing the likelihood of problems -- but a wide distribution (more
than "hundreds of meters" apart) does help, within limits.

Increasing the number of lasers helps out in two ways: it increases
the available relaxation time, and angular displacement to the target
will have changed more between shots.  I expect relaxation time to be
large (thunder lasts a long time), hence the number of lasers will
have to be large.  If in addition they have to be widely dispersed AND
high up, we need lots of mountains.

Using mirrors instead of separate lasers is a neat idea, if it can be
arranged.  It does keep laser costs down.  But since every reflection
will introduce error -- which is multiplied by the next mirror -- the
tolerances will be small indeed.  Astronomers and their optician
friends seem to have a good grip on most of the relevant factors.  The
biggest problems would seem to be mirror coating and switching.  The
mirror coating has to be awfully good.  If switching is helped by
turning the laser off, OK; but if done by mirror motion alone, it gets
really tricky.  Note that if lots of mountains are necessary, the
mirror proposal suffers a bit (no vacuum tunnels).

Using mirrors, of course, does not change arguments concerning beam
refraction.  Simply replace "laser" with "mirror" and it all stands
except for details of the cost analysis.

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

Date: 16 Dec 1981 1604-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20
cc: space at MIT-MC


Agreed that the more lasers you have the better (although you
obviously reach a point of dimishing returns due to capital costs of
the lasers).  If you employ a mirror system (and you are correct in
pointing out that there are severe switching and coating problems
here, although I do not think they are insolvable - lasers use mirrors
anyway in the generation of the beam, so something should be workable)
then, as far as the influence of the atmosphere is concerned, you can
make a single laser look like it is dozens of lasers hundreds of
meters (or even kilometers) separate.  True, there is still a natural
spreading of the beam over meters of vaccum, but the effect can be
ignored at this level of discussion.

Now I am assuming that the column of heated air generated by the beam
is on the order of meters in diameter.  Therefore and system with
different firing windows spread out over hundreds of meters should
generate beams whose heated air columns never coincide anywhere.

Now say the relaxation time is on the order of seconds.  How long can
you fire a laser before thermal booming becomes a major facter?  I
assume it is at least on the order of miliseconds.  A dozen lasers,
with several dozen windows each, could handle this quite well.
Certainly better than hundreds of lasers!

Of course, the final launch configuration depends on a lot of factors.
But we could get high level land for a truely spread out launch site.
It ultimately depends upon the cost tradeoffs, which we cannot
evaluate exactly (although we can point out general relationships).
Thus this present discussion is reaching its limit unless people can
dig up hard numbers for things.  Query: has NASA or anyone else done a
REAL study of this concept?  (Maybe JEP has a pointer)

Jim

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

Date: 16 Dec 1981 1604-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
Sender: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE
To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20
cc: space at MIT-MC
Reply-To: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE


Agreed that the more lasers you have the better (although you
obviously reach a point of dimishing returns due to capital costs of
the lasers).  If you employ a mirror system (and you are correct in
pointing out that there are severe switching and coating problems
here, although I do not think they are insolvable - lasers use mirrors
anyway in the generation of the beam, so something should be workable)
then, as far as the influence of the atmosphere is concerned, you can
make a single laser look like it is dozens of lasers hundreds of
meters (or even kilometers) separate.  True, there is still a natural
spreading of the beam over meters of vaccum, but the effect can be
ignored at this level of discussion.

Now I am assuming that the column of heated air generated by the beam
is on the order of meters in diameter.  Therefore and system with
different firing windows spread out over hundreds of meters should
generate beams whose heated air columns never coincide anywhere.

Now say the relaxation time is on the order of seconds.  How long can
you fire a laser before thermal booming becomes a major facter?  I
assume it is at least on the order of miliseconds.  A dozen lasers,
with several dozen windows each, could handle this quite well.
Certainly better than hundreds of lasers!

Of course, the final launch configuration depends on a lot of factors.
But we could get high level land for a truely spread out launch site.
It ultimately depends upon the cost tradeoffs, which we cannot
evaluate exactly (although we can point out general relationships).
Thus this present discussion is reaching its limit unless people can
dig up hard numbers for things.  Query: has NASA or anyone else done a
REAL study of this concept?  (Maybe JEP has a pointer)

Jim
-------

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

Date:  17 December 1981 00:20 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  A few technical quibbles...
To:  Space at MIT-AI

Mostly about the laser launch system.

Jim McGrath's points about the advantages of laser launch over laser
missle defense are very well taken. You CAN pick your launching
times, and that offers a LOT of advantages.

To all of you who are worried about selling the excess power to the
public power grid: That's the wrong way.

If you are going to build a nuclear power plant, then really take
advantage of it. Build an industrial park along with the power plant
thd the launch site. Populate the part with industries that use large
amounts of interruptable energy and large amounts of low-level heat.
There are many chemical processes that can use the low-level heat
effectively. And there are lots of uses for industrial electricity.
Someone mentioned electric furnaces for speciality steels, but there
is a much better one:

     aluminum

Consider: it requires LOTS of electricity, is a high-value low-weight
product so you can afford to ship it from remote areas, and the pot
line can be shut down on almost zero notice without damaging the
process (something you can't do with an electric furnace).

A very large percentage of our aluminum is now made in Washington
state on third shift using the night power from the Columbia River
dams.

One of the aluminum companies (Alcoa? I really can't remember.) is
seriously studying building their own nuclear plant to run a very
large set of aluminum pots. They think it's justified just for the
aluminum. And they didn't even factor in co-generation and other uses
for waste heat.

There is also a study kicking around somewhere on exactly the subject
of having a nuclear plant power an industrial park, without extensive
connections to the main power grid. The conclusions were favorable.

The other point is that, while you need tremendous power to drive the
lasers, you only need it for 90 seconds. Clearly you don't design
your power plant to meet this peak. Rather, you design on some kind
of energy storage device and design your power plant to meet
something like the average need.

Superconducting coils and large flywheels come immediately to mind.
You then divert the output of your (much smaller) power plant for 8
hours or so to pump up your storage device and then let 'er rip. You
could, for example, not build your own power plant, but charge your
device during the night (keeping the power company happy since they
couldn't otherwise sell the power) and then launch at sunrise. Again,
you CAN pick your launch time. 

The storage devices have been extensivelystudied, since power
companies want them for load-leveling. They seem practical, and
should produce something like a 90% in-out efficiency. Both flywheels
and superconducting coils can be discharged at very high rates.

And, of course, if you are using multiple lasers then you build a
storage device located with each one. Saves on power transmission
losses.


To Jim McGrath: I'm not sure why you think that the speed of light
would be a problem in an active stabilization system for the skyhook.
Any waves generated in the cable would travel at the speed of sound
in the cable. That has got to be several orders of magnitude slower
that light.

Personally, I like it. Shall we start a company and build one?

			Paul

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

Date: 16 Dec 1981 21:50:29-PST
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: Project Orion and relatives

If anyone is interested in the details of nuclear pulse propulsion,
possibly the best place to start is the lead paper in the August 1979 issue
of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society:  "Nuclear Pulse
Propulsion:  A historical review of an advanced propulsion concept".  It
discusses everything from the original concepts to the recent schemes
based on beam-ignited microexplosions.  About 1/3 of the 25-page paper
is the best technical (as opposed to project-history) discussion of Orion
I have seen, including an attempt at an analysis of the rather vague vehicle
descriptions in "The Curve of Binding Energy".  The 97-item bibliography
might also be of interest.

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

Date: 17 Dec 1981 0314-EST
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #61
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-XX
In-Reply-To: Your message of 16-Dec-81 0602-EST

	I have this uncomfortable feeling that the report in Science is
correct. I'm goddamned if I'm going to sit still and let my tax dollars
be spent on everything EXCEPT the one thing I'd like to see them spent
on. If my granparents starve because of it, too bad.
-------

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

Date: 17 Dec 1981 0319-EST
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX>
Subject: Checkoff on your tax form
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-XX

	Wouldn't it be neat if there were checkoffs on your tax forms
so you could send some of your tax money (or perhaps extra tax money)
to projects of your chosing, the way they have the election funding
thing now?
-------

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

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

18-Dec-81  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #63   
Date: 18 Dec 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #63
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:
			    skyhook disasters
		   Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
		     Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 1981 0951-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: skyhook disasters
To: space at MIT-MC

	What makes you folks think that the surface-to-geosynch skyhook
would only be ONE cable? All that needs be done is to build a triangle, say
100-200 meters on a side, with three cables (each able to support its own
weight). If one snaps, you have cleanup work to do, but the replacement cable
could be quickly strung up (or down) on ANY of the remaining.
	Placing them sufficently far apart would solve the collision
problem. Oh yes, what makes you folks think the airspace around the skyhook
would'nt be restricted from air/LEO traffic -- try flying over the Kennedy
Space Center in your Piper Cub and see if the FAA doesn't get upset
(especially when a launch is scheduled -- the Air Force will chase your
ass away with T-38's).
-------

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

Date: 17 Dec 1981 at 2159-PST
From: Andrew Knutsen <knutsen@SRI-UNIX>
To: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE
Cc: space at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
In-reply-to: Your message of 16 Dec 1981 1604-PST.
Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX

	I dont think its obvious that one reaches a "point of
diminishing returns" in the laser/mirror ratio. Its possible
that a lot of little lasers are cheaper than a few big ones for
reasons like mass production and using lower-spec materials.
The question at least merits study...

	I sure hope this is tried at least. If air can be heated
to incandescence before blooming gets bad, the effect might be
like a cone of light with the ship at the top, lighting up the desert
if its done at night. Wouldnt help NASA's "showbiz" reputation any
though...

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

Date: 18 December 1981 03:25-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
To: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

 (relaxation time to return to normal) / (number of windows)
isn't a number, it's a unit of time.
Thus asking it to be a small number is totally meaningless.
I think you mean instead:
 ((relaxation t)+(excitation t)) / ((number of windows)*(excitation t)) < 1
For example, if relaxation time is 10 seconds and excitation time is
5 seconds, and number of windows is 3, you get (10sec + 5sec) / (3 * 5sec)
= 15sec / 15sec = 1 so you just break even and have no allowance for
safety, but with 5 windows you have 15sec/25sec=0.8 < 1 so you're ok.

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

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

19-Dec-81  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #64   
Date: 19 Dec 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #64
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 64

Today's Topics:
				 Skyhooks
	Nuclear Power Plant vs. SPS for Laser Launch System Power
			      Laser launches
				Spaceports
				Spaceports
			       Momentum   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  18 December 1981 18:05 est
From:  Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Skyhooks
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 18 December 1981 06:03 est from Ted Anderson

I assume you're suggesting building a hollow pyramidal skyhook, 200
meters wide at the base and meeting at the point?  It seems to me that
this would ADD strain to the structure.  For instance, small to
medium-size radio towers come to a point at the bottom just so wind
flexing won't tear them apart.  I should think that the magnitude of
possible side forces on a skyhook structure would be much worse.

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

Date: 18 Dec 1981 17:39:41-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley
Subject:  Nuclear Power Plant vs. SPS for Laser Launch System Power

I don't like radiation.  Why not use an laser SPS instead of the
nuclear power plant for the laser-launched shuttle?  The power could
be beamed to Earth and stored, then fired from Earth based lasers
during the first part of launch to reduce thermal bloom while the shuttle
is still deep in the atmosphere.  After the shuttle gets out of the atmosphere
it could be illuminated directly by the laser on the SPS, saving storage
costs on the ground and allowing you to get away with fewer lasers on the
ground since the reduced ground cost would allow decreased efficiency 
during part of the boost.

If only ground-based lasers are used, the thermal bloom must be fought
even after the shuttle itself clears the atmosphere, but for an SPS
laser, after the shuttle gets through the denser layers there is a
corresponding reduction in the thermal bloom effect, so you would need
only one laser on it.  Also note that nuclear power plants have had
the problem that they are out of commission .2 to .5 of the time.

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

Date: 19 Dec 1981 00:47:53-EST
From: dee at CCA-UNIX (Donald Eastlake)
To: space at mc
Subject: Laser launches

If you need a lot of power for just 90 seconds, can't you accumulate it in
flywheels or something over a longer period of time??  (Maybe a flywheel
at each of multiple lasers?)

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

Date: 19 December 1981 03:10-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Spaceports
To: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Even if the mass and complexity of the 600 km linear accellerator is
the same as the rotating&dipping cable in orbit, the l.a. is much
easier to build. Why? (1) It can be built and tested incrementaly.
Each piece can be installed in sequence and suborbital test flights
of cheap passive material (dirt, rock) can be made. When enough
sections are installed to achieve orbital velocity, it becomes
operational. The dipping cable, on the other hand, must be built
and installed as one big piece somehow. (2) The cable must be put
into space somehow whereas the linear accellerator can be installed
by conventional means such as bulldozers cranes trucks etc. Thus
the linear accellerator can be started now without needing the
shuttle whereas the dipping cable will DETRACT from shuttle payload
capacity by diverting capacity from normal use to cable use, and can't
be started anyway until the shuttle is operational. Thus I don't
think the cable should be done until after we are well out into
space, whereas unemployed construction workers could be assigned
to the accellerator in 1982. We could use the shuttle for delicate
equipment and people, and the linear accellerator for bulk materials.
(I'm not sure whether we should do the Earth-based accellerator now
and use it for bootstrapping ourselves into space industry, or
go instead with the moon-based accellerator which WILL need a
few shuttle payloads to get it installed but possibly be more
effective due to lower moon gravity and lack of atmospheric friction.)

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

Date: 19 December 1981 04:22-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Spaceports
To: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Galombos proposes a spaceport, cnsisting of a large mass in high
orbit that can lower a cable about 400 km long; hook onto a
suborbital mass at Shuttle; and up it goes. The energy in the
spaceport is restored by ion engines and solar arrays.

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

Date: 19 December 1981 04:25-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Momentum   
To: HPM at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

AHA! You want to use Earth's rotational energy for space
launches. YUou technologists never care about the environment at
all.  What about all the creatures that can't survive longer
days and nights?

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

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

20-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #65   
Date: 20 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #65
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 65

Today's Topics:
				Spaceports
			   SPACE Digest V2 #64
		     SPS firing with laser at launch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 1981 0305-PST
From: HPM at S1-A
Subject: Spaceports
To:   space at MIT-MC
CC:   rem at MIT-MC 

No, no!    The 600km spaceport accelerator is in low earth orbit.
It catches payloads that can climb that high (which is easy) but
don't have the velocity to stay in orbit (which is hard) and
speeds them up to orbital momentum.

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

Date: 19 Dec 1981 09:59:34-PST
From: Cory.kline at Berkeley
To: E@MIT-MC, SPACE@MIT-MC
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #64

.....Bah, humbug.

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

Date: 19 Dec 1981 20:27:36-PST
From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley
To: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: SPS firing with laser at launch.

Egads!  Can the accuracy be found for this kind of work?  I can just
imagine the poor fellow on the ground who gets hit with a gigawatt of power
in the face from the SPS laser while he strolls in his backyard.  You will not
hear much complaining from him, but you will from the lawyers of his estate.

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

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

21-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #66   
Date: 21 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #66
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 66

Today's Topics:
				Complexity
			      re: flywheels
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 1981 0917-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Complexity
To: space at MIT-MC

		I don't like radiation.

Believe it or not, lasers produce radiation (electromagnetic).
While one may want EVERYTHING to be eventually powered by SPS,
the point is that by the time we get enough SPS installed we will
be able (in an economic and engineering sense) to build a skyhook,
and thus laser launch systems will go the way of rockets.

I have a similar prolem with flywheels, et al.  The problem is that
in a new, already technically complicated venture you do NOT want
to add complexity.  That is a sure way to never get ANYTHING done.
Perhaps flywheels should be used - but quite frankly it appears that
a simple proper scheduling of your launches will do nicely to smooth
out power demands.  And thus flywheels should take a back seat to
the more fundamental problems, which all have to do with the lasers
(lasers themselves, blooming problems, tracking problems, etc...).
They will be difficult enough to solve, although it appears it will be
possible.  Adding more constraints might make it impossible for the
project to be done at all - it would definitely make it much harder,
and probably DECREASE the cost/benefit ratio.

Jim

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

Date: 20 Dec 1981 1652-EST
From: Clifford V. R. Ludwi <LUDWIG at MIT-XX>
Subject: re: flywheels
To: DEE at CCA-UNIX, space at MIT-MC

	The MIT Plasma Fusion Center uses a refurbished Con-Ed generator to 
power the Alcator fusion device.  The generator is spun up to operating 
speed, and the load is connected.  It delivers about 160KA at 100V for something
like ten seconds.  The exact figures may be off, but the order of magnitude is
correct.  Anyhow, the generator is used as a flywheel, and drops in speed by
10% after a shot.  It takes roughly five minutes to get it back up to speed.
Not bad, 16MW for 10 seconds.  Of course, if you want to put something in 
orbit...
			Cliff

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

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

22-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #67   
Date: 22 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #67
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 67

Today's Topics:
				Flywheels
	   Private manufacturing of satelites -- News clipping
				radiation
			   Electric Satellites
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 1981 1201-CST
From: John Otken <CC.Otken at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Flywheels
To: space at MIT-MC

They have a flywheel as a power source for the Tokamac here at U.T. also.
Although the numbers I recall for it are 160V @ 400KA, what is
important is that this was suppose to be peanuts for flywheel industry.

So don't buy a nuke (unless it is on sale) or an SPS, rather buy
a gigawatt worth of flywheel(s) and purchase power at night .
Ready for a morning launch....

What's not very obvious to me is the receiving end of this thing.
It has to absorb a gigawatt over a period of ninety seconds.
Could someone give a sketch of this device?
-------

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

Date: 21 Dec 1981 1452-PST
Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL
Subject: Private manufacturing of satelites -- News clipping
From:  William "Chops" Westfield <BillW@SRI-KL>
To: space-enthusiasts at MC
Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]21-Dec-81 14:52:36.BILLW>

e617 12:21  21-Dec-81

-u.s. firms plans to build its own satellites

   washington -(dj)--the american satellite co., a
pioneer in the development of high-speed satellite
communication networks for businesses, asked regulatory
permission monday to build and launch its own satellites.
   the proposal, filed with the federal communications
commission (fcc), asks permission to build three satellites.
one would be launched in 1985; the second in 1986, and the
third held as an on-ground spare. the project will cost more
than 225 million dlrs if approved, the company said.
   american satellite, a joint venture between the
continental telephone corp. and fairchild industries, based
in rockville, maryland, has become one of the largest
satellite operators in the u.s. by leasing or buying space
on satellites built by other firms and then building
specialized networks for its customers.
   most recently, the company purchased a 20 pc ownership
position in western union's westar satellite system. through
its parent companies, it also has the right to use up to 50
pc of the commercial capacity of two new advanced westar
satellites now under construction.
   in its application to the fcc, american satellite said
it intended to build special 'hybrid satellites,' which have
the capability of operating on two different bands of radio
frequencies. the satellites will have a 10-year design life
instead of the 7-year life that is now the industry norm,
and will be capable of being launched by either the space
shuttle, an american delta rocket or the european space
agency's ariane rocket.
   if approved, the satellites will be controlled through
new facilities to be built at america satellite's existing
operations center in vernon valley, new jersey, the firm
added.
   the fcc's response to the application filed monday may
be governed in part by a proceeding launched recently to
explore the technical problems that might arise if the
orbital spacing between existing satellites is reduced. the
commission has said it may have difficulty authorizing new
satellites without such a reduction.
-0-
-(dj-12-21-81 2021gmt

***************

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

Date:     21 December 1981 1706-cst
From:     Bill Vaughan               <VaughanW at HI-Multics>
Subject:  radiation
To:       JPM at SAIL
Cc:       SPACE at MC

Gee, sorry you don't like electromagnetic radiation.  I tend to be a
little more fussy about the kinds of EM radiation I don't like.  E.g.:
  Gamma rays: NO!  
  X-rays: only under my doctor's orders.
  Short-wave ultraviolet: only to erase EPROMs with, thanks.
  Long-wave UV: good in moderation for suntans, special effects at parties.
  Visible: enough to read by, thanks.
  Short-wave infrared: good for radiant heat; the sun puts out a lot.
  Long-wave IR: as long as I'm not dead, I emit a lot of that myself.
  Microwaves: please keep them in the oven! 
              (And don't walk in front of big radars.)
  UHF, VHF: I like my television, telephone, & marine radios to work.
  HF, MF, LF: Ditto for broadcast (except for a few stations) etc.
  VLF on down: Not enough information (though lightning generates a lot
               of VLF, so it probably isn't too bad for me).

Saying "I don't like radiation" sounds nice, but it's either demagogic
or ignorant.  BTW - was it an infrared, visible or UV laser you didn't
like the EM radiation from?

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

Redistributed-Date:  21 December 1981 17:42 cst
Redistributed-By:  VaughanW.REFLECS at HI-Multics
Redistributed-To:  Space at MIT-MC
Date:  15 December 1981 12:37 cst
From:  Bibbero.PMSDMKT at HI-Multics
Subject:  Electric Satellites
To:  {mbx >udd>reflecs>bv>ARPA_fwd} at HI-Multics (Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC)

I don't recall hearing about a space elevator until reading
Arthur Clarke's book, but there was a joke going around missile
circles circa 1956 about the "electric satellite -- they haven't
gotten around to inventing the extension cord yet."  This joke
inspired me to calculate the feasibility of such an extension
cord from earth to synchronous altitude, using a tapered
construction.  With steel, I recollect the diameter at apex
was several thousand feet.  The calculations are long gone but
my results are more in line with Hans Moravec's message of
11 December than those of wildbill ("several times the diameter
of earth.")

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

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

24-Dec-81  0302	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #68   
Date: 24 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #68
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:
			   Electric Satellites
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 December 1981 06:40-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Date: 23 December 1981 06:38-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Electric Satellites
To: Bibbero.PMSDMKT at HI-MULTICS
cc: "{mbx >udd>reflecs>bv>ARPA_fwd}" at HI-MULTICS

Hmm, if people don't like microwaves, maybe a long extension cord,
for the Earth, not for the SPS, would be a good way to deliver the
power down to here from the SPS.  How about a plug at the North Pole
on a swivel, with superconductors running SPS --> NP --> power grid?

(Don't jump on me, it's late at night and I'm in a strange mood after
playing Go all night. Besides, it's not totally absurd is it?)

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

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

25-Dec-81  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #69   
Date: 25 Dec 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #69
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 69

Today's Topics:
		    long extension cords & beanstalks
			Engine supported sykhook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 1981 12:34:47-PST
From: decvax!duke!phs!dennis at Berkeley
To: duke!decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: long extension cords & beanstalks

That seems to be a way to manage the SPS power-transmission
problems:  microwave beams to the top end of a beanstalk,
then hardware transmission to the ground.
Does anybody out there have lossage figures for vacuum
power transmission, as opposed to 22,100 mi of vacuum + 200 mi
of atmosphere?  Granted, there's another conversion step
involved (reception at the head of the beanstalk),
but maybe the lack of atmosphere lossage will make up for that.
Also, it gets rather neatly around those turkeys who
think the microwaves will cook the atmosphere and the animals,
and give an economic boost to the whole beanstalk system
(cheap power -- that applies to the neighborhood around
the base of the beanstalk, too!).

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

Date: 24 December 1981 20:35-EST
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Engine supported sykhook.
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     REM's idea of an electric cable from SPS to earth inspired me with
the idea of electric powered ion engines all along a skyhook to support
its weight; also along REM's cable to support its weight too.  This
avoids the need for an exponential taper.

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

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

26-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #70   
Date: 26 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #70
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 70

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

Date: 26 December 1981 01:56-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

not totally absurd at all. keep thinking...

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

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

27-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #71   
Date: 27 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #71
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 71

Today's Topics:
				North Pole
			     Cables to an SPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 26 December 1981  15:13-CST
From: Jon A. Webb <CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20>
To:   Space at MC
Subject: North Pole
cc:   cs.webb at UTEXAS-20, REM at MC

I guess it's not immediately obvious that skyhooks can only be attached
to the equator, not to the north pole, since geosynchronous orbit is
possible only in the plane of the equator.

Jon

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

Date: 26 Dec 1981 00:05:43-EST
From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton)
To: space at Mit-mc
Subject: Cables to an SPS

It occurs to me that even aiming at a reception station just above the
atmosphere for cable transmission down to earth would not stop the
complainers - it might cause them to complain more.
If the SPS is at geosync orbit, then a station a few hundred miles up is
effectively on the earth for most of the rotation cycle, so there would
be lots of earth beyond the path of the beam, and worst of all, not just
one place (like the desert)  Instead a whole circle of danger is sweeped
out if any leakage occurs.
What are the figures on how much power can be stored in how much mass
of chemical fuel?  For example, is it practical at all to use SPS power
to create fuel cells from (say lunar) raw materials, by things such
as the electrolization of water?  Could this fuel then be dumped right
onto the earth for parachute pickup, or is the container cost too high?
If the container cost is high, then perhaps the power canisters could
be fired (safely, assuming we can catch them easily) to the top of
a small (200 km high or so) skyhook, and sent down to Earth for whatever
use.  (ie. reconverted to electricity (somewhat inefficient) or pumped
down in fuel form)  Anyway, the canisters, and even the raw materials can
then be shot back up to the SPS for re-use.

On the ion lifted skyhook, I think this is pretty unlikely.  Even if
you cut the weight in half, you don't save much in taper, and you need
the power from your engines capable of supporting what you wanted to
support with your strong material.  Probably easier to lift everything
up by STS!
Besides, might there not be an effect from the constant stream of energy
going along the cable?

I think with our current technology, the low orbit rotating hook is the
only way we can go right now.  It's a good stepping stone to the
geosyncronous one.
A hook is much preferable to a linacc, since the linacc is only of
use to cargo, and people are forced to take something like the STS up.
This means that most of us, who want to go up (at least for a visit)
might not get the chance before we buy it.

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

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

28-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #72   
Date: 28 Dec 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #72
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 72

Today's Topics:
				North Pole
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Dec 1981 1936-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: North Pole
To: space at MIT-MC


First, you CAN have a skyhook at the North (or South) Pole.  In
theory, these are the only two spots on the earth which do not rotate.
There are, in fact, slight precessions that give you difficulties,
especially since the skyhook's horizontial position (like an
equatorial one's vertical position) is at an unstable stable point (ie
the moment it gets out of wack the displacement tends to get larger,
not smaller).

However, all this speculation is really meaningless because a skyhook,
in the sense we have been talking about, cannot be placed at the
poles.  Why?  Well, our skyhooks rely upon the tension created
throughout the structure by the rotation of the earth.  At the poles,
this tension cannot be generated (since the structure does not
rotate).  Thus the weight of the structure has to be supported by the
base, just like any other building.  I am not sure we could build such
a structure (I have not cranked the numbers) , but clearly the polar
skyhook scheme has no ADVANTAGE over the equatorial one.

Second, I am puzzled that no one has mentioned the obvious solution to
the SPS power beaming problem.  Naturally the power transmission from
space to ground is done via superconducting cables along a skyhook.
So why not extend this logic further?  Instead of beaming the power
from the SPS to the skyhook (incurring transmission losses, conversion
losses, and still some safety problems), simply string a
superconducting cable from the SPS to the skyhook!  That is, do not
use beam transmission at all - always use cables.  This cuts your
transmission losses to near zero.  If you are generating electricity
directly at the SPS, then you never do any energy conversions - if
not, then only one conversion is needed.  And you have eliminated all
safety problems.

Jim

-------

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

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

29-Dec-81  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #73   
Date: 29 Dec 1981 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #73
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 73

Today's Topics:
			     Cables to an SPS
			     Cables to an SPS
			 Otrag pulls out of Libya
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 December 1981 02:12-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Cables to an SPS
To: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: 26 Dec 1981 00:05:43-EST
    From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton)
    It occurs to me that even aiming at a reception station just above the
    atmosphere for cable transmission down to earth would not stop the
    complainers - it might cause them to complain more.
    If the SPS is at geosync orbit, then a station a few hundred miles up is
    effectively on the earth for most of the rotation cycle, so there would
    be lots of earth beyond the path of the beam, and worst of all, not just
    one place (like the desert)  Instead a whole circle of danger is sweeped
    out if any leakage occurs.
This doesn't make sense. If the station a few hundred miles up is in normal
orbit or otherwise moving with respect to the Earth, there's no way to
connect a cable between the station and a fixed point on the Earth, which
was the original idea of mine. On the other hand, if the station is fixed
with respect to the Earth, as I intended, the geometry is fixed, the beam
from the synchronous-orbit SPS always is aimed at the same place on or
off the Earth. It can be arranged for the low-relay-station to be a quarter
revolution away from the SPS (with respect to center of earth) so that the
beam from SPS to relay-station is essentially tangent to the Earth, missing
it at all times.  My original idea was to run the cable all the way from
the SPS to the Earth, but I think the relay-station idea is a viable
alterntive which doesn't involve part of the beam passing the relay station
and striking the Earth. Only the side lobes have a chance of striking
the Earth, and with the relay station several hundred miles from the Earth
the side lobes reaching the Earth can be made insignificant.

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

Date: 29 December 1981 02:41-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Cables to an SPS
To: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I don't see anything wrong with inventing a cheap way to put bulk
materials into space and then reserving the shuttle for humans and
fragile cargo. Thus the linear accelerator could be useful even
though it works only for bulk cargo, reducing the need to reserve
the shuttle for such loads, leaving it more free for other stuff.
If delicate cargo can be packaged correctly so it can withstand the
jarring of the accelerator, and if it's not too delicate to
withstand the average acceleration, then even delicate cargo can
be sent by accelerator.

Here's another idea I just thought of. How about a rotating catapult
in a vacuum chamber. There's a door that opens for a moment just as
the load is released from the catapult and then closes quickly so
not much air gets into the chamber.  The reason for the chamber is
so the catapult can spin up to speed without encountering much
air friction.  The whole contraption could be installed on a high
mountain top or flown up in a baloon, so the air outside the chamber
has much less pressure than sea-level, and the air inside could be a factor
of ten lower pressure. The combination of high initial speed (because
of spinning-up the catapult in a near vacuum) and nearness to the
top of the atmosphere (because of location) possibly means a good
shape (low friction, low turbulence) and a thin ablative coating
would enable tossing up to a 100-mile altitude where a spacecraft
could catch the projectiles and toss them to higher orbit etc.
There would be a high velocity difference between the projectile and
the orbiting relay (catch&re-toss) station, but that's easy to
handle, just have a long arm that catches the projectile while
withdrawing at high RPM (like the way a baseball player catches
a fly ball) and then just rotates around (at constant RPM) to another
position where it lets go of the projectile. Thus the catch&re-throw
catapult has to withstand only centrifugal force while actually
handling the load, no tangential force.  The force while spinning up
preparatory to catching the load and while spinning down afterward
is small (the computer can plan the catch a quarter to half orbit ahead of
catch-time, i.e. as soon as it's released from Earth, then make minor
adjustments in the spin-up as the projectile is tracked on its way
up from Earth, making the spin-up quite smoothe. Note that the
axis of the catapult-spin, the distance of the catcher from the
pivot point, and the RPM, can all be controlled, achieving a perfect
catch, the projectile exactly striking the catcher and the velocities
of the projectile&catcher being zero at the moment of catching).

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

Date: 29 Dec 1981 00:14:15-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley
Subject: Otrag pulls out of Libya
Cc: POURNE@MIT-MC

Otrag, a West German company that has been developing rockets with
potential military applications, has halted testing work in Libya.
They began withdrawing personnel and abandoning their launching base
about two months ago.  American intelligence sources indicated that the
company was using its ostensibly peaceful rocket program to mask
efforts to sell military technology, including short-range rockets, to
Libya, Pakistan, Iraq, and other countries; the company has denied such
reports.

Sources claim that the pullout followed an internal battle, in which
Lutz Kayser, an aerospace engineer who founded the company, was fired.
Kayser is reported to have remained in Libya, and is still working on
missle development.

The company now says it will refrain from developing its own launch
facilities, instead using launch sites operated by other countries or
international groups.  "This will help eliminate the political problems
of Otrag-owned sites," said Frank Wukasch, president of Otrag.

	From a N.Y. Times News Service article

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

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

30-Dec-81  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #74   
Date: 30 Dec 1981 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #74
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 74

Today's Topics:
			       sps skyhook
			   Re: Cables to an SPS
			   Re: Cables to an SPS
		Transporting energy with space technology
			    Building skyhooks
	   Cables to an SPS / Fuel etc. for shuttle from space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 1981 02:54:56-PST
From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley
To: sytek!menlo70!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: sps skyhook

Why can't we build the sps into the top of a geosynchronous
skyhook and not have to beam microwaves ANYWHERE?? Then what can they
scream about?
	-berry kercheval

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

Date: 29 Dec 1981 20:56:39-EST
From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton)
To: REM at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: Cables to an SPS
Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

In response to your message of Tue Dec 29 02:13:19 1981:

Your comment is correct - I must have been in a Christmas mood when composing.

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

Date: 29 Dec 1981 21:07:57-EST
From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton)
To: REM at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: Cables to an SPS
Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

In response to your message of Tue Dec 29 02:42:33 1981:

The idea of a spinning catapult in a vacuum was mentionned to me by I fellow
whose name I forget at an L-5 party at the Denvention (world SF convention in
Denver) this year.  I'll try and dig up the paper he gave me on it.

As far as using the STS as the only transport for people, I suppose that
is workable, but just how many people could we bring up in them?  If each
STS launch costs 30 megabucks, we are still talking about a large chunk of
money per person.  How many people could you launch if they were packed like
sardines?  Would the number of shuttles to be built be reduced once a cheap
cargo method like a skyhook was in the works?

It still all boils down to ME not getting into space.  In another 60 years
we will probably not be in shape even for the smoothest rides, if the
current funding trends continue.

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

Date: 29 Dec 1981 21:17:22-EST
From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton)
To: energy at mit-mc, space at mit-mc
Subject: Transporting energy with space technology

Although oil is not, in my opinion, the way to go, we still have to face
up to the fact that large quantities of money are going to be spent on digging
oil out of the ground in the next few decades.  The Canadian government alone
expects 300 GIGABUCKS will be spent in the next decade or so on matters such
as the tar sands and arctic oil.

This is a lot of money, enough to buy a whole passle of Shuttle flights or
to put a solar power unit in orbit.  Can we get some of it spent on space?

People are looking anxiously for a way to get oil out of the north down to the
consumers in Canada and the US.  It's all in ice, so tankers can't reach it
unless they are submarines, pipelines are hard to build, and are very
vulnerable to very costly sabatoge by natives who don't want them.
What can space technology do to ship the power.

It can either be shipped as oil or in another form.  Is it possible to build
one of the catapults talked about in the Space Digest to send oil to a touchdown
off the coast from some refinery?

What about in other forms?  If we can build such a plant there, could the
oil be burned, and the power sent up to reflectors or collectors in orbit
to be beamed back down to the surface again?

This may all sound like it will perpetuate oil, but it puts lots of those
nice petrodollars into space.  Or am I dreaming?
	Brad Templeton (p-btempl@cca-unix or decvax!watmath!bstempleton@Berkeley)

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

Date: 29 Dec 1981 20:51:33-PST
From: ihnss!karn at Berkeley
Subject: Building skyhooks
Has anyone actually thought about the strategy of building skyhooks?
Would you start at ground level, without anything at the top to pull
the line out from the earth, or would you start at geostationary
altitude and go in both directions to keep it balanced?  I'm not sure
that a partially completed (unanchored) skyhook could be kept stable
long enough to be completed.

Phil

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

Date: 30 December 1981 03:29-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Cables to an SPS / Fuel etc. for shuttle from space
To: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

It'll be trivial to send down the hydrogen and oxygen used for the
main engines of the shuttle, once we find a source of hydrogen (in water
or elsewhere) and have space industry and SPS running. It should be
reasonable to send down solid rocket fuel. The large fuel tank is
lightweight so we might make a bunch of them in space and dump them
in a bundle over the ocean where they will gently float down to
the surface (of the ocean). I'd sort of like to know where the
money goes that we claim costs so much for each shuttle flight.
I think it's mostly prorating on the original construction, so the
more we use the shuttle (up to its usable lifetime) the less it costs
per flight. If we can get fuel and construction materials cheap, maybe
we can reduce the cost of building additional orbiters, and thus bring
down the cost per launch?

What if we had 100 orbiters, running up and down commute flights on
a semi-daily basis (go up one day, come down the next, immediately
prepare for launch the next day). We're a long way from that now, but
maybe someday with passengers packed like sardines we can put about
3000 people in space (30 per orbiter, 100 orbiters in fleet) each
two or three days. With SRBs and fuel tanks prepared ahead of time,
so we just stick them on the shuttle and add the fuel and launch the
contraption with a short countdown, couldn't we do that? Let's
see, that would be half a million per year. I guess that's not
enough with 4.5 billion wanting to go up there. (If we really
did semi-mass-produce orbiters, would be the unit cost?)

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

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

06-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #75   
Date: 06 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #75
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 75

Today's Topics:
			      Administrivia 
		Transporting energy with space technology
			 Cost of a Shuttle flight
			 Shuttle passenger module
			    Building skyhooks
	      Re: Transporting energy with space technology
	   Summary of garbled messages --> location of skyhook
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #68
		 using skyhooks for energy transmission.
	 Re: Summary of garbled messages --> location of skyhook
	 Re: Summary of garbled messages --> location of skyhook
		    long extension cords & beanstalks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 05 Jan 1982 2244-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Administrivia 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

As perhaps you have noticed, the system that distributes the Space Digest
was down for almost a week.  It should now be back on line, sorry for the
delay.
	Ted Anderson

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

Date: 30 December 1981 11:10-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Transporting energy with space technology
To: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX
cc: ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

Gigabucks spent just trying to get oil out of ground and send it to
where it's needed is a good reason for developing space for energy.
If a teensy fraction of that money were invested in space, we could
get bootstrapped. There's a political problem, do we want some big
petrolium company owning the whole space-industry project? But if
nobody else will invest the money to develop the technology,
maybe we have to go that way. We carefully watch their progress:
If they develop it, fine; If they suppress it to protect their interests,
we get on their backs.

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

Date: 30 December 1981 1126-EST (Wednesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Cost of a Shuttle flight
Message-Id: <30Dec81 112618 DS30@CMU-10A>

I read somewhere (AW&ST?) that when the shuttle is operational, it
will cost about $9 million to refurbish and refuel a pair of SRBs.
I don't know where all this goes, but it doesn't help that the
propellant is aluminum.

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

Date: 30 Dec 1981 2123-EST
From: Roger H. Goun <G.ROGER at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Shuttle passenger module
To: space at MIT-MC

I read somewhere that a passenger module for the space shuttle had been
designed.  I keep hearing that the orbiter is as large as a DC-9, but
actually has the interior room of a DC-10, so does anyone know how many
people this configuration can actually seat?

How does this compare to the number of Marines that came boiling out of the
Moonraker shuttle in the James Bond movie?

					-- Roger

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

Date: 2 January 1982 06:28-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Building skyhooks
To: ihnss!karn at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The best simple paper on building a skyhook is in THE ENDLESS
FRONTIER Volume Two, editor J E Pournelle; paper by Charles
Sheffield, called "Building A Skyhook". ENDLESS FRONTIER Volumes
One and Two are the lead SF titles from ACE BOoks this month.

JEP

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

Date: 31 Dec 1981 00:00:44-EST
From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton)
To: REM at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: Transporting energy with space technology
Cc: ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

In response to your message of Wed Dec 30 11:13:04 1981:

If we're going to develop space and viable energy sources (I think those
two go hand in hand), then the only way to see it in our lifetimes may be
with petrodollars.  Great leaps often only occur with paranoia, be it
from WWII, the Cold War or the space race.  Right now one of the big
sources of fear is the problem of energy - people are willing to spend
gigabucks at the drop of a hat if you mention oil to them.  Moving
heavy industry into space and powering it with a Solar Power Satellite
is one of the best answers I know of for a lot of our problems today, and
it paves the way for who knows what else better.
(for those of you in space@mc, sorry for the preaching to the converted)

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

Date: 1 January 1982 13:22-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Summary of garbled messages --> location of skyhook
To: CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: Thursday, 31 December 1981  18:31-CST
    From: Jon A. Webb <CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20>
    The one on the North Pole pointed out there's a significant difference
    in power consumption between North Pole and equator skyhooks, perhaps
    enough to make the North Pole skyhook impractical (why bother to put it
    there anyway?)
Equatorial spots are filling up fast with comsats. Soon there'll be no room
there for anything new (would you want a giant object generating lots
of radio noise sitting right in your comsat beam path?). Comsats must be
equatorial because they are passive, they don't have gigawatts of energy
available for levitation like SPSs do. That leaves SPSs with nice spots
over the poles with no competition from comsats.

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

Date:  4-Jan-82 10:24:21 PST (Monday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #68
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 24 Dec 1981 0302-PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Reed

REM's message of 24-DEC gave me another idea:

Why not use the earth's rotational energy to drive a generator?

Have the drive shaft run from an earth-based generating armature up to
space, where solar or other energy can put energy into slowing the
armature down relative to the earth's spin, essentially having the earth
move the magnets around the armature. You cound even combine REM's and my
ideas into one by having his swivel be my generator. (Another crazy idea,
maybe, but I'm crazy anyway.)

REM's cable need not be a real cable, but perhaps a microwave guide. I
don't know enough electromagnetics to say for sure, but it might reduce
losses at the same time as protecting the outside environment.

We could apply this second idea to the equator based skyhook - use it for
transportation and power transmission at the same time.

Another crazy idea: What about the possibility of using the earth as the
rotating armature itself and dragging a magnet through the Van Allen belts
to generate power?

	--	Larry		--

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

Date: 5 Jan 1982 2146-PST
Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL
Subject: using skyhooks for energy transmission.
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW @ SRI-KL>
To: space at MC
Message-ID: <[SRI-KL] 5-Jan-82 21:46:16.BILLW>

Hmm.  I think you will have problems running superconducting cables down
a beanstalk.  Kelvar may be very strong and flexible and resilent, but
superconductors and the machinery associated with them arent.  However,
what about using the beanstalk, or part of it, as a waveguide?  Does
anybody know about the dielectric properties of Kelvar?  Anybody know
what the relative transmission efficiencies of dielectric waveguides
vs atmosphere transmission?  How thick does a waveguide wall need to be;
can you get away with metalizing the outside of a Kelvar rope? (I
suppose I should know the answers to some of these questions, but
I tended to be very bored with E&M by the time we got around to
waveguides in classes...)

I think this would solve all environmental complaints, as the
microwaves would be contained inside the waveguide.  If it broke,
transmission would fall apart.

Finally, re someones chewing out of someone elses statement to the
effect that he didnt like the idea of being hit by the radiation
from an SPS.  Everything person 2 said (different types of "radiation",
and so on) was true, but Ill agree with #1:  I dont want to get hit
with a beam of radiation of ANY type that has power densities high
enough for efficient energy conversion attempts...
(actually, I might take a chance if it meant going into space and
 virtualy unlimitted energy -- you have to take some risks for the
 good things in life ! )

Bill W

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

Date:  5 Jan 1982 1156-CST
From: Jon Webb <CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Re: Summary of garbled messages --> location of skyhook
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20
In-Reply-To: Your message of 1-Jan-82 1222-CST

Obviously the communications satellites are only temporary.
When we start building skyhooks their functions will be handled by
stuff on the skyhooks.

Jon

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

Date: 5 January 1982 20:19-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Summary of garbled messages --> location of skyhook
To: CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date:  5 Jan 1982 1156-CST
    From: Jon Webb <CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20>
    Obviously the communications satellites are only temporary.
    When we start building skyhooks their functions will be handled by
    stuff on the skyhooks.
Good point, but I don't think it's completely valid.
The trouble is, during the transition period both have to co-exist.
After the transition period, maybe some comsats can be removed or
just masked by new construction.
Did you see the Cosmos episode about how New York City still has
a general plan that is 2 centuries old, lots of buildings and
streets that are 1 century old, and only a minority of really new stuff,
because during the transition everything has to co-exist and it
just doesn't pay to rip out all the old stuff before putting in
the new stuff, or even afterward? (And how the human mind is even
more conservative, the reptilian brain and lower brains still exist
in essentially their old form even though the mammal and human brain
have been added?)

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

Date: 26 December 1981 01:49-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: long extension cords & beanstalks
To: decvax!duke!phs!dennis at UCB-C70
cc: duke!decvax!ucbvax!space at UCB-C70

I never thought of that advantage to a beanstalk, but of course
there would grow up at stalkhead (in space) a complex of stuff,
and a power statoin would be inevitable; then ptransmission down
the stalk by large power DC lines, and...

Good idea, or so think I on first thught.
JEP

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

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

07-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #76   
Date: 07 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #76
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 76

Today's Topics:
			  Cables down a skyhook
		       Hauling cargo into orbit    
			   Keyworth on Space  
		      2001ish alignment on March 10
			 Non-equatorial skyhooks
			    How 'bout a RING!
			    Space in the news
			  USAF > Aerospace Force
       Non-equatorial skyhooks and other stable/levitating objects
			   Levitating SPSs?   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  6 Jan 1982 1207-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Cables down a skyhook
To: space at MIT-MC

	Running superconducting cables down a skyhook should be no problem,
for the stress of the skyhook is borne by the cables, not the power lines.
Power cables do add to the weight of the structure, but one should
not be building a skyhook unless one has sufficent extra load capacity
to hang things off of it (like power cables).

	In short, if you can't run things up and down the skyhook, why
bother with the whole mess?
-------

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

Date: 06 Jan 1982 1150-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Hauling cargo into orbit    
To:   space at MIT-MC  


With regard to putting unmanned cargo packets into LEO and using
the shuttle as a Greyhound Bus (people and their luggage only)
the December 7, 1981 issue of Aviation Week had a small article
about a similar idea.

Boeing Aerospace has been contracted to study an unmanned launch
vehicle based on the Shuttle SRB (solid rocket boosters).  There
are apparently several flavors of the SRB-X vehicle:

        * SRBs only.  Apparently the cargo is strapped to a
          cluster of SRBs (one or more).  Can put 65,000lb into LEO
          or 12,000lb into GEO.

        * LRB (liquid rocket booster) and ET (external tank).  This
          is an orbiter configuration with LRBs replacing SRBs.
          Maximum payload is 100,000lb to LEO.

        * Unmanned Cargo Orbiter.  Essentially a cargo canister that
          pretends to be an orbiter.  Max payload is 130,000 to 140,000
	  pounds (presumably to LEO, though it does not say).

        * In-line vehicle.  SRBs and ET with Shuttle engines mounted below
          the tank and cargo shroud mounted atop the ET.  Payload
	  between 80,000 and 140,000lb.

Boeing will be studying all these (and probably more) and recommend
a single configuration to be used.  The idea is to build these things
from available (off-the-shelf) components and launch from Shuttle
launch facilities (KSC and Vandenberg).

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

Date: 06 Jan 1982 1151-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Keyworth on Space  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a008  2205  04 Jan 82
PM-Space Program, Bjt,490
Reagan Science Adviser Says U.S. To Stay In Space Business
By WARREN E. LEARY
AP Science Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States will stay in the space
exploration business but will have to find more economical ways to do
it because of federal budget cuts, says President Reagan's science
adviser.
    George Keyworth said Monday that the Reagan administration will
continue unmanned planetary exploration and initiate major new space
programs despite rumors it would cut such missions to save money.
    But Keyworth said new missions to the other planets will be less
complex and less expensive than recent billion-dollar projects such as
Voyager, which returned spectacular data and pictures from Jupiter
and Saturn.
    The physicist said the administation is committed to major space
science projects and will back building the Gamma Ray Observatory, a
major astronomy spacecraft to be launched by the space shuttle.
    Keyworth told the annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science that the administration has begun a major
reassessment of the space program.
    This review will look at the future of the space shuttle, new
earth-orbiting satellites and plans for another generation of
planetary exploration craft, he said.
    The study also will consider broadening the base of the U.S. space
program to include more industry and university involvement, as well
as more international cooperative projects to share the costs and
responsibilities of space exploration, he added.
    But looking for cheaper, more effective ways to explore space should
not be construed as lack of support or commitment, he said.
    ''The Reagan administration is supporting a strong initiative in
planetary science, and this includes a number of new projects that
will develop using the capabilities of the space shuttle,'' he said.
    Keyworth offered few details on the new projects pending completion
of the program review and finalization of the fiscal 1983 budget
about to go to Congress. He did indicate, however, that they may not
begin until the end of the decade.
    The science adviser said there is no truth to rumors the
administration is considering shutting off communications with the two
Voyager spacecraft now on the way to explore Uranus and space outside
the solar system.
    ''The deep-space network needed to receive data from Voyager still
will receive support for data reception and analysis,'' he said.
''We'd throw away billions (of dollars) for want of a few million by
not funding such activities.''
    He said the Gamma Ray Observatory project would be a major one - on
the scale of the Space Telescope, which will be launched by the
shuttle in 1985.
    This project would be a follow-up to the successful Einstein X-ray
Observatory which scanned the heavens for objects emitting X-rays, he
said. Both gamma rays and X-rays are invisible to the human eye and
objects that project these types of radiation can be missed by
conventional astronomy.
    ''There is a strong administration commitment to the Gamma Ray
Observatory,'' Keyworth said in a later interview. ''We have explored
its potential and cost and believe it worthy of a major initiative.''
    
ap-ny-01-05 0102EST
***************

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

Date: 6 Jan 82 12:15-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
To: space at mc
Subject: 2001ish alignment on March 10

a203  1016  06 Jan 82
AM-National Briefs,540
    ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) - The nine planets of the solar system are
nearly aligned this year, a phenomenon that won't occur again for
several centuries, a University of Michigan astronomer says.
    The planets will be lined up closest on March 10, astronomy
Professor Richard G. Teske said this week. If an observer could stand
on the sun on that date, he would see the planets in an arc of 97
degrees in space. According to one prediction, the formation will not
be repeated until at least the 24th century, he said.
    Teske said the formation ''has no special significance'' for
scientists, and no special studies are planned.

ap-ny-01-06 1311EST
**********

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

Date: 6 Jan 1982 12:44 PST
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Non-equatorial skyhooks
To: CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20, REM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	It seems that skyhooks anchored almost anywhere on earth could in
theory be self-supporting and stable if it pointed in the right direction, and that
most of them wouldn't pass through geosynchronous orbit. One anchored far
away from the equator, of course, wouldn't go straight up as seen from the
ground. It might look pretty impressive in the evening as it took off in a
catenary.
	 Trouble is, the difficulty of building a such a skyhook is probably an
exponential function of the square of the latitude or something!

					Jerry  

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

Date:  6 Jan 1982 1625-EST
From: C. Greg Hagerty <HAGERTY at RUTGERS>
Subject: How 'bout a RING!
To: space at MIT-MC

   By the  time  we start  to  worry about  running  out of  room  for
satellites around the equator,  as well as SPSs  and things, how  hard
would it be to build a RING around the equator -made of all those  old
satellites, space-mined metals, you name it (hotels,  chemical/mining/
plants, factories, SPSs,  solar/space-o-thermic contraptions,  Shuttle
ports...).  One could have  many cables 'hanging'  from this ring  for
power/communications, and an interesting horizon.  At first, the idea
seems  unlikely,   but  after   some  unpractical   thought,   reading
'Ringworld'...it doesn't appear to be that far-fetched.  No?
.Greg
-------

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

Date: 6 Jan 1982 1343-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Space in the news
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: Space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 6-Jan-82 13:43:10.WMARTIN>

From the Monday, 4 Jan 82, issue of Electronic Engineering Times:

(Government/Aerospace section)

DC Circuit by Howard Roth (column)

A Problem of Space

It is no secret that certain federal programs that originated in
the 1960's are not looked upon with favor by the Reagan
Administration.  Mostly, those programs are of the welfare and
social security variety.  But there is a program of a different
type that enjoys similar recognition - the space program.

I have repeatedly written on the merits of the space program, the
resulting commercial benefits and the program's great source for
national pride.  It is, unfortunately, again time to address the
treatment of NASA by the President and his men.

This does not include the space-shuttle program, though that is a
part of the problem.  It is the area of planetary programs that
holds the most concern.  At the moment, the Galileo mission to
Jupiter is the only US planetary program left on the active list.
The latest word to the Executive Office from the Office of
Management and Budget is the recommendation to kill the Galileo
mission, in which $300 million has already been sunk.

Since it is the only full-scale program left on the active list,
it is occupying much of the time of the 1200 program scientists
at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  The demise of Galileo,
according to NASA, would disperse many of these scientists, and
therefore a significant portion of the US planetary capability.
That would certainly be a bad move.

If this does occur, then the NASA activities are concentrated,
for the most part, with the space shuttle.  But the plans are to
turn the operation of the shuttle, once development is completed,
over to private contractors.  If this happens without a
concurrent planetary program, NASA will be lacking a focus, a
nucleus - a raison d'etre.  A Reagan space policy is promised,
but it has yet to materialize.  But present actions have a
tendency to speak louder than future words, and the
Administrations's present actions are dictating the future - or
lack therof - of US leadership in space.

The Spatial Majority?

Speaking of the space budget, less than one penny of every tax
dollar in the US is spent on the space program.  There is a group
that is seeking to change that.  Given today's political
realities, this is a group whose appearance was inevitable.

The Campaign for Space Political Action Committee (Space PAC) is
now seeking contributions from citizens who want to elect
politicians supporting an expanded space effort.  This also means
getting politicians who don't support such an effort out of
office.

According to Space PAC's executive director Thomas Frieling,
"Although there are dozens of nonprofit, educational space
organizations, ours is the only group that can solicit money and
give it directly to political candidates."  If this is your way
of getting action, contact Space PAC at Box 1526, Bainbridge, GA
31717.

-end-

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

Date: 6 Jan 1982 1358-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: USAF > Aerospace Force
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 6-Jan-82 13:58:31.WMARTIN>

From the Jan 4 82 issue of Electronic Engineering Times:

"AEROSPACE FORCE": New Name for Air Force Would Reflect
Commitment To Lofty Goals

Washington -- A bill has been introduced in Congress which would
redesignate the US Air Force as the US Aerospace Force, and
create a separate space command in the renamed service.

Introduced by Rep.  Ken Kramer (R-CO), the bill is necessary,
according to its sponsor, because the US military space programs
are "fragmented, duplicative, and without a strong advocate".  He
mentioned that at least 25 different Defense Dept.  organizations
now handle the military's space effort.

If enacted, the bill would require the Secretary of the Aerospace
Force to report to Congress 180 days after enactment with regard
to "the feasibility and desirability of establishing a separate
command for space".

Centralized control and management of US space programs should be
expedited because of two main reasons, according to Kramer.
First is the growing Soviet space threat.  The Soviets are
reportedly using antisatellite systems equipped with clusters of
interceptor vehicles.  The second reason is the increasing US
dependence on systems such as satellites, strategic
communications, early warning and attack assessment, air defense,
ballistic missle defense, and space-based lasers.

Part of the problem, commented Kramer, is the difference in the
way the military use of space is perceived by the US and the
Soviet Union.  He said the Soviets regard space as "a standard
combat medium, an area where military encounters will occur.  The
US, on the other hand, persists in seeing space as a permanent
'sanctuary' where support systems for terrestrial forces can
operate permissively.  This view powerfully conditions our design
and operational philosophy as well as our ogranization for
military space systems."

According to a spokesman for Kramer, the bill will probably be
referred to the House Armed Services subcommittee on
investigations.

-end-

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

Date: 6 January 1982 19:24-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Non-equatorial skyhooks and other stable/levitating objects
To: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20

There are only two places where a geosynchronous object can exist easily:
 (1) equatorial gwosynchronous orbit, like the current comsats,
  zero thrust needed except for stabilizing against purturbations;
 (2) polar levitating, like I suggested,
  the further away you are from Earth the less thrust you need to
  levitate a given mass, thus by going sufficiently far away you
  can find a place for any station with nonzero thrust.
Anywhere else, the further away you go the less levitating thrust
you need (passing thru zero at some distance when centrifugal force
cancels gravity) but there's always a need for sideward thrust to
cancel the non-levitating component of centrifugal force, with this
sideward thrust approaching zero at poles (zero total centrifugal
force) and at equator (centrifugal force in the same direction
as levitating force, thus no component sideward). Centrifugal
force increases as you get further out, the opposite of gravitational force,
so if you're very close or very far from Earth the total force gets
too large to handle. Somewhere in the middle there's a point where
minimum total force is needed to maintain geosynchronous location,
but that minimal force may be too much for a given technology.
Eventually, however, we may find technology sufficienty effective
to levitate above any point on Earth, espcially near the poles.

Skyhooks are another matter, because the higher up you are the
more mass of cable you have to support. This kills the polar
existance proof, leaving equatorial spots as the only obvious
places and others depending on effectiveness of technology.
Of course if the SPS is very large and the cable is arbitrarily
thin, the polar argument applies again, you put the SPS out far
enough that it can levitate itself plus a little more, then make the cable
thin enough that that little more is enough for it.  But that's
only valid if you have a large SPS for space work and you want to
prove a trickle can be sent down to Earth. With a given technology
for superconducting cable, if you double the SPS to double the power
available to levitate, you also double the power you want to feed
to Earth thus double the mass of the cable, and the ratio remains constant.
The result is that for a given technology, only a fixed percentage
of the total SPS power can be fed to Earth (the rest needed to
levitate the SPS and cable), and if this is too small it isn't
worth the trouble.

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

Date: 06 Jan 1982 2035-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Levitating SPSs?   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

REM has repeatedly brought up the idea of levitating an SPS, so I decided to
see if it was even slightly feasible.

E=.5mv^2	is the energy equation for the thrust.
p=mv		momentum eq.
Gravity basically adds momentum, at the rate of gM, where g is the local
acceleration of gravity and M is the mass of the SPS.

Thus the energy (power) we have tells us how little exhaust mass (mass flow)
we can get away with.  The other equation equates the momentum added to the
SPS by the earths gravitation field with the momentum provided by the rockets.

m = M^2*g^2/2/P
	M is the mass of the SPS per square metre, avg.
	g is the local acceleration of gravity
	P is the power available.
	m is the mass per second exhausted by the rocket.

More interesting is the ratio of the mass exhausted to the mass being supported.
This tells you approximately what fraction of your SPS is fuel and how often
you have to refuel.

m/M = M*g^2/2/P

Clearly we want g as small as possible.  At GEO, g=.3m/s/s, and I used
M = 100grams/m^2, P = .5Kw/m^2 (Is this reasonable?  I seem to remember that
solar flux is about .5 Kw/m^2 or was that 1.5Kw/m^2?  Anyway this is optimistic
since it assumes very efficient solar cells and rockets.).  Using these numbers
I get 1e-5.  Note that there are about 1e5 seconds per day, so you are using
the whole mass of the SPS once a day, not too good.

At 10 times GEO, which is about where the moon is, I get 1e-9, which is about
30 years, much more reasonable.
	Cheers,
	Ted Anderson

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

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

08-Jan-82  0604	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #77   
Date: 08 Jan 1982 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #77
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:
			 Cost of a Shuttle flight
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #76
			     Polar Skyhooks 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 January 1982 06:13-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Cost of a Shuttle flight
To: David.Smith at CMU-10A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, HPM at MIT-MC

    Date: 30 December 1981 1126-EST (Wednesday)
    From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
    I read somewhere (AW&ST?) that when the shuttle is operational, it
    will cost about $9 million to refurbish and refuel a pair of SRBs.
    I don't know where all this goes, but it doesn't help that the
    propellant is aluminum.
Gee, what a dandy argument in favor of mining the moon.
You see, moondust/rock is mostly oxygen, silicon, ALUMINUM, titanium, ...
Just think if we could refine aluminum on the moon or at L-5 or
elsewhere in space and send the rocket fuel to earth where it can just
be packed and sealed in the SRB?
Eventually we could make the whole SRB in space.
(HPM has the original report on Apollo samples containing the nice
 info about aluminum etc.)

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

Date:  7 Jan 1982 1027-EST
From: G.RONNIE at MIT-EECS
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #76
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: G.RONNIE at MIT-EECS
In-Reply-To: Your message of 7-Jan-82 0609-EST

When is the shuttle launching again and with what?
-------

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

Date: 07 Jan 1982 1545-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Polar Skyhooks 
To:   space at MIT-MC  


Once again, there is NO difficulty in thory with building a skyhook at
a pole.  There are some complications (see my previous message for
details), which basically boil down to horizontial instability and
the lack of tension along the structure.  The stability problem is really
not a serious one.  The tension one simply requires you to build a
structure that will support itself like any regular building.

So while it would be difficult to build a polar tower, it would be far from
impossible.  The major requirement would be a material with a high
enouh strength to weight ratio.  Since polar towers win you little
compared to those on the equator, it does look like, as a practical
matter, they will not be built until we reach the stage where we
can afford to build things like that for "fun."

Jim

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

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

13-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #78   
Date: 13 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #78
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 78

Today's Topics:
		      Long article on isolation    
			     life from comets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 1982 1029-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Long article on isolation    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

BC-POLE 
(ScienceTimes)
By ROBERT REINHOLD
c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service
    SOUTH POLE STATION, Antarctica - The events of Aug. 17, 1979, will
not get into the official history books, but they were something of
psychological milestone in the history of the South Pole. Outside,
temperatures dipped to 71 degrees below zero in a blinding blizzard,
but inside, emotional temperatures among the crew of 16 men and one
woman, after nearly half a year of total darkness, were reaching the
flash point.
    Foaming at the mouth and roaring drunk, a member of the crew who had
recently learned of his father's death, piles into the galley in
rage. He yells and begins to smash cups wildly. Blood and glass
everywhere. Soon he spies his rival for the affections of the
station's lone woman and charges with a two-by-four, then runs out
into the blizzard. It is hours before the mayhem ends, with gashes,
bruises and frostbite.
    In the three days of eerie calm that followed, Andrew Cameron, the
22-year-old supply man who witnessed all this, reflects in his diary:
''Most people would never winter over if they knew what it really is
like. Well the truth of it is that it can be fun at times but the
deep dark winter with hopeless evacuation for eight months is a sheer
mental hell.'' He wonders how the crew, afflicted by deep jealousies
and divisions, can survive another three months.
    Though an extreme example, that night of violence underscores the
powerful mental effects of protracted isolation. And many
psychologists believe the unusual nature of Antarctic isolation - in
which a small group of scientists and support personnel is confined
to a tiny life-sustaining cocoon surrounded by an impenetrable
hostile environment that permits no quick escape - may hold lessons
for an approaching age of prolonged space travel and space
colonization.
    To judge from the experiences of recent winter crews at Antarctic
outposts, there is still much to be learned about human adaptation to
these rigors. A major problem has been to learn how best to
incorporate women into the previously all-male Antarctic culture.
After a recent winter here, one woman required treatment in a mental
institution.
    ''Isolation is a kind of stress - it brings out the best and worst
in people,'' said Dr. Jay T. Shurley, a psychiatrist who spent
several years studying the denizens of the South Pole.
    Those who have wintered here almost invariably say it was the worst
and best year of their lives. They tell of extreme depression,
boredom, insomnia, paranoia, sexual frustration. They also speak of
spectacular auroral displays, starlit nights of incredible beauty and
enduring bonds of friendship.
    Again in a few weeks, as the Antarctic summer ebbs and the annual
sunset begins over a barren white horizon of ice, the last flight
will lift off, leaving 15 men and two women here to their own devices
until next November. They will be unable to escape even for the most
extreme medical emergency. Rustling leaves, falling rain and animals
will all become foreign. There will be no new clothes, new movies or
fresh food.
    In such an environment, say psychiatric experts on isolation,
seemingly minor personality quirks or even a slight change in the
weather are magnified out of all proportion and can have
unpredictable effects on the group's psychological well-being, and
conflict flares easily.
    For this reason, those volunteering to winter in the Antarctic are
screened for personal idiosyncrasies like knuckle-cracking or other
nervous habits that might be a source of irritation to others,
according to Capt. Noel S. Howard, a psychiatrist with the Navy's
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery who supervises the testing. He said
the most important traits he looks for are ''flexibility'' and
tolerance of other people's habits and beliefs.
    Bad bets, he said, are those with any paranoid traits, excessive
suspicion and those excessively dependent on external stimuli and
rewards. ''A person with some introverted qualities is better off
than the glad-handing back-slapping extrovert,'' he said.
    Oddly, many say that having regular radio communication with home
sometimes exacerbates the isolation, underscoring a feeling that the
world is passing by. ''So if a loved one runs off with the milkman,
that person is stuck there,'' said Howard, who likened personnel at
the Antarctic station psychologically to prisoners of war.
    Whatever the psychological stress, this station can hardly be called
a hardship post. The station is housed in three overheated
orange-colored buildings snuggled under a 50-foot-high geodesic dome.
The dome keeps out the snow drifts and wind, providing a pleasant and
spacious environment in the floodlit area beneath it. There is a
small gym, a room for weight-lifting, a Jacuzzi bath, a bar (''Club
90 Degrees South - We Never Close''), an excellent library and an
extensive videotape collection (''The French Connection,''
''Patton,'' ''MASH'').
    The social center is the galley, decorated with murals of country
lakes, where Merriann Bell of Keene, N.H., prepares sensational
meals. For those wanting privacy, there is the Sky Lab Lounge, a
small room at the top of a spiral staircase, warmly furnished with
dark rugs and luxurious armchairs. Outside the picture window one can
gaze at the bamboo stake that marks the exact bottom of the globe. It
has to be moved each year because the ice has drifted about 30 feet,
dragging the entire station with it.
    Though the Navy does the screening, the entire winter crew belongs
to the United States Antarctic Research Program, an arm of the
National Science Foundation. Seven of the 17 are scientific personnel
making observations of the weather, upper atmosphere and geophysical
phenomena. The rest are support workers - a cook, engineers,
mechanics, a doctor - employed by a private contractor, ITT Antarctic
Services Inc., of Paramus, N.J.
    If the past is any guide, the group will soon form a divergent
social system of its own, developing its own humor and jargon, and
will divide into cliques. By most accounts, the 1981 winter was
fairly successful despite some tensions.
    The station leader, Tom Plyler, a tall, bearded, 32-year-old former
Marine officer said he held weekly meetings to resolve problems and
that alcohol use actually declined as the winter wore on.
    Still it was not easy for Cynthia McFee, the lone woman. She is a
lieutenant (junior grade) in the uniformed corps of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and she was running the South
Pole branch of the agency's program on geophysical monitoring for
climate change. Though she said he was not harassed sexually by the
16 men, she found it extraordinarily lonely without any other women.
    ''I could never be one of the guys, no matter how hard I tried,''
she said. ''Male camaraderie is a very powerful thing. Men and women
think differently. No matter how great I was, I'd still never be
accepted. This is when I was really lonely.'' She said she may have
done better than other women because she was used to working in
mostly male settings.
    There is debate over whether women should be allowed to winter here.
Shipwreck studies suggest that male-female combinations fare better
psychologically, but the experience here is very mixed.
    ''It's hard enough for a group of men to be at this isolated spot
without a member of the opposite sex, with the cold and the
darkness,'' said Dr. Richard L. Cameron, manager of the science
foundation's glaciology program. ''Then you throw in one or two women
and the group dynamics become very strange. It would be very
difficult to find the right mix. So all men or all women might be
better.''
    Howard of the Navy said that ideally there should be at least three
women - ''certainly more than one'' - and that the whole question was
under review. As for sexual relations, Howard said that all
candidates were warned of the ''dangers'' of sexual liaisons under
the supercharged conditions here. He said celibacy was the best
course.
    According to Shurley and others, the men think of nothing but sex
for the first few weeks, then it is submerged until nearly the end of
the winter. ''You just basically put it out of your mind,'' said said
Andrew Cameron, the author of the diary, who is Dr. Cameron's son.
''You are working all the time; there is no privacy.''
    Indeed, he said, he was so preoccupied with station problems that he
read only a dozen books. He said the first emergency came early in
1979, when a technician panicked after the last flight out had left.
He was afraid that God could not find him if he died in the
Antarctic, according to Cameron. Fortunately it was not too late to
evacuate him.
    There were other diversions, he said, such as the product of the
''biological gardens,'' the marijuana patch that produced ''South
Pole home grown.'' He saw little evidence of harder drug use, though
alcohol abuse was heavy.
    Psychologists say the best candidates for isolation are hard-working
personalities, somewhat diffident, with higher than average
intelligence and education, and without close family ties. Above all,
they say, isolated personnel should be competent in their work, since
criticism can be devastating in such confines.
    Probably the best bets are what Shurley calls ''professional
isolates,'' the kind of men who work on offshore oil rigs and Alaskan
pipelines. Such men, he said, do not relate well to women and seem to
thrive on isolation. They are definitely not homosexuals, but what
Shurley calls ''latent heterosexuals.''
    ''Some of the people who are most gung-ho for this experience are
not well adapted,'' said Cameron. ''They tend to be misfits, seeking
something they'll not find. And when the bubble bursts, their
depressive experience is very difficult for others to handle. This is
the big league of isolation.''
    As for Andrew Cameron, now living in Gaithersburg, Md., he says it
took him nearly a year to calm down from the winter. Toward the end
he wrote in his diary: ''I am sick of this chunk of ice. I want to
get out of this cesspool. Let me get the hell out of here. I want to
go home.'' Today he calls it ''the greatest year of my life.''
    
nyt-01-12-82 0003est
***************

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

Date: 12 Jan 82 13:45-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
To: space at mc
Subject: life from comets

a229  1300  12 Jan 82
AM-Life From Comets,500
Astronomer Says 'Seeding' Theory Gaining Acceptance
By JACK A. SEAMONDS
Associated Press Writer
    TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - An astrophysicist says there is growing
acceptance of the theory that comets ''seeded'' a barren Earth
billions of years ago with the ingredients for life.
    Dr. Armand Delsemme, a professor at the University of Toledo, said
that during a meeting last week in Mountain View, Calif., a consensus
of scientists agreed that the theory is growing as more is learned
about the ''rich'' chemistry in outer space.
    He said the meeting at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's Ames Research Laboratory argued only about how - not
whether - the ''seeding'' took place.
    ''Essentially, the elements in our bodies are 99.9 percent of the
group including hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen,'' Delsemme said
in an interview Monday. ''The same elements are found in the sea, but
they are not found in the interior of the Earth.''
    ''The question is, how did these elements get to Earth, where they
clearly are in abundance? Where did the ocean itself come from?
Through research in astronomy, we have found that all these same
elements ... exist in outer space, and that with these fundamental
elements we have the building blocks of life itself.''
    He said astrophysicists have detected 52 interstellar molecules of
organic compounds in space.
    ''In addition, we found that there are huge concentrations of water
in space. In addition, we found what could be called two precursors
of life, the compounds formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    ''Starting with only these three molecules, we can make all the
amino acids, which are the basic stones with which life is built,''
Delsemme said.
    The key link missing in the chain, he said, is linking the molecules
to the development of life on Earth and, perhaps, on other planets.
    Also being sought, Delsemme said, are methods to detect whether
amino acids themselves exist in space. ''We have found evidence of the
lightest of these, glycine, and it is very likely we will find others
once we can identify them with radio-telescopes,'' he said.
    Delsemme said that as the Earth was developing it was preiodically
''swept'' by comets' tails, which left cosmic dust that he believes
carried the elements basic to life.
    Delsemme and other scientists speculate that the dust accounts for
the Earth's crust, which is rich in nitrogen, hydrogen and other
elements essential to agriculture.
    ''This gradual process would have been accomplished by 100 billion
comets in a vast cloud surrounding our solar system,'' Delsemme said.
    The Earth's oceans are probably the result of melting the cosmic
dust, which included large amounts of space ''frost,'' he said.
    ''If you consider the Earth has existed for more than 4 billion
years, and life has been in existence on Earth for only a half-billion
years, you see the development of life happened rather quickly,''
Delsemme said.
    ''Something almost automatic happened, but so far we don't know
exactly how ... But I believe within the next 20 years ... we will
know how it happened because of the advancements being made in the
biological sciences and astronomy.''
    
ap-ny-01-12 1557EST
**********

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

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

14-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #79   
Date: 14 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #79
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 79

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #78
		 Question on Michelson-Morley experiment
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 1982 0958-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #78
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: DIETZ at USC-ECL
In-Reply-To: Your message of 13-Jan-82 0302-PST

The claim in that news article that life has been in existence on the
Earth for only 1/2 billion years is patently false.  There is evidence
for life going back over 3 1/2 billion years.  In fact, it is now 
thought that it is very easy for life to get started, taking only a few
million years.
-------

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

Date: 14 January 1982 00:26-EST
From: Ken Harrenstien <KLH at MIT-AI>
Subject: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment
To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC

Apologies to those receiving duplicates.  I was reading through
a friend's pile of old magazines the other day, and came
across a curious statement.
	In the November 1979 issue of ANALOG there is a guest
editorial titled "Beyond Relativity" by G. Harry Stine.  It
is a fairly standard treatise on Einstein, the nature of science,
and so forth, at least until page 161.  At that point there is
a paragraph which made me blink several times:

	"And, while it is true that Michelson and Morley did not find
	the expected 60 kilometer per second differential that would
	have confirmed the existence of the luminiferous ether, THEY
	DID FIND A DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT 8 KILOMETERS PER SECOND!"
	 (caps are italics in original)

	There is more following this, to the effect that these results
have been duplicated repeatedly, and it seems as if the speed of light
is not, in fact, independent of the motion of the observer!

	Naturally I am very curious to know what more knowledgeable
readers might have to say about this, or the article itself if they
can find it.  Is the quote, for example, a correct statement of
fact?  Is G. Stine given to wild conjectures or distortions?  (Doesn't
strike me that way, though.)  Considering the desperate search of
SF for holes in the lightspeed limit, I'm a little surprised that
Analog doesn't seem to have followed up on that in later issues.
Perhaps somebody has already explained it away?

--Ken

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

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

15-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #80   
Date: 15 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #80
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 80

Today's Topics:
		 Question on Michelson-Morley experiment
	       Re: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment
		 Question on Michelson-Morley experiment
		 Question on Michelson-Morley experiment
			    Analog 'hoaxes'   
			       Harry Stine
			 Harry Stein and Physics
			  The 8 KPH Light Drift
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 January 1982 06:31-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment
To: KLH at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI

Harry gets carried away sometimes.

He also told of the chap who did the Michaelson Morley
experiment hudreds of times and got all kinds of relative
motion.  I asked Bob Forward about that, and Bob said,
	"Yep, he did the same experiment with the same crummy
equipment and kept getting the same erroneous results..."

I have often thought of doing an SF story in which they go to
the Moon and someone does the M-M experiment and gets the
relative velocity of Moon around Earth...

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

Date: 14 Jan 1982 10:40:35-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: klh at mit-ai
Subject: Re: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment
Cc: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc

   I will leave the question of references, accuracy, etc. to those
who have more immediate access to physics libraries. (Though I notice
you don't mention any footnote going with this claim.)
   However, it should be noted that G. Harry Stine is an enthusiast,
liable like most such (especially hard-engineering types) to go
overboard when talking outside his specialty. (Stine's specialty is
rockets; he was one of the honchos at White Sands and helped push 
a nationwide model rocketry club.)

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

Date: 14 January 1982 11:41-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment
To: KLH at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI

Analog has a long history of making absolutely matter of fact statements
which are totally false, to support their latest big hoax.
-- Remember the "Dean Drive"? Campbell, then editor, made a flat statement
 in a reply to a letter to the editor that a Dean Drive hanging from the
 ceiling on a rope and aimed sideways will rise up at an angle, thus
 refuting the claim that all thrust was really just nonlinear vibrational
 effects on the bathroom scale they had been using. I actually started
 believing in the Dean Drive after that letter-reply, for a few years, sigh.
-- Remember the crystal that dissolved about 1 second before it struck
 water, so they hooked up a chain of them with each dissolving of a
 crystal causing water to drop on the next? They went pretty matter-of-fact
 on that, although I was smart enough not to believe them.
-- I don't believe this stuff about Michaelson-Morley experiment showing
 a positive result. More likely the velocity reported was the experimental
 error, the claim being that an upper bound on our motion thru the "ether"
 was found, and Analog distorted the truth to make their hoax. (If
 experimental error is 8, and you measure 0, then it's possible the
 correct value is anywhere from -8 to +8, you can't say it's zero for sure,
 but Analog has no right to say it isn't zero either. Probably the
 measured value was not zero, but close enough to zero to be within the
 range of experimental error. The best (simplest) conclusion to make
 is that it's probably exactly zero but that more accurate equipment
 will be needed to either bracket it closer to zero or actually bracket
 it away from zero.) Now if Science had made the same claim, I'd be
 more willing to look into the matter instead of just dismissing it.

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

Date: 14 January 1982 13:27-EST
From: John G. Aspinall <JGA at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Question on Michelson-Morley experiment
To: KLH at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI

The Michelson-Morely experiment has been repeated many times.  A
summary of a number of these experiments appeared in a review article
by Shankland et al. [1] in 1955.  The best test I could find a
reference to, is one using lasers in 1964 [2].  (I found pointers to
both these references in "Special Relativity", by French.)

In none of these experiments, was there any detected fringe shift
that could be ascribed to ether motion.  Later experiments put
successively lower bounds on any possible motion.

In the laser experiment, "... No change in beat frequency ... was
detectable within the accuracy of the measurement (about +/- 3kHz).
This was less than 1/1000 of the change that one would calculate from
an ether-wind hypothesis...." (Quote from French.)  Now fringe shift
(or beat frequency shift - same thing) is proportional to the square
of the velocity difference, so this means that any motion is down by a
factor of more than 30 from the ether-wind hypothesis.  This is
certainly not the detected motion that Stine claims.

I haven't read the Stine column, and I would be interested to hear if
the letters section in following months had any complaints about this
in it, but I will inject one personal note here.  This is the sort of
thing that gives SF a very bad name - if we (the collective SF
community, editors especially) let this sort of thing go unchallenged,
then we deserve the reputation of not being able to distinguish fact
from fiction.  SF might as well be all fantasy.  Any claims to being
intelligent speculation about "what might happen" go out the window,
in the eyes of many.

Agreed, there is a line to be drawn between stifling creative thought,
and "print everything as fact", but you don't overcome "math anxiety"
by telling the student that all answers are right.  Likewise you don't
encourage intelligent speculation about OUR world, by ignoring what
we know already.

[1] Shankland et al., Rev. Mod. Phys., 27, 167, (1955).
[2] Jaseja et al., Phys. Rev. 133, A1221, (1964).

John Aspinall.

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

Date: 14 Jan 1982 1108-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Analog 'hoaxes'   
To:   rem at MIT-MC
CC:   space at MIT-MC, sf-lovers at MIT-MC


I think Robert has his facts a little confused about Analog participation in
gross deception.

	- The Dean Drive has never been tested (or the tests were not reported
	  in Analog) by hanging it pendulum-fashion.  Analog carried several
	  articles saying that this is the proper way to test alleged
	  reactionless drives (I agree).  Dean never let his drive system
	  get into the hands of people who could test it scientifically.
	  Analog NEVER said it was a real reactionless drive, only that it
	  MIGHT be one and somebody should try and find out.  Several people
	  did try (Stine among them) but nobody ever got a Dean Drive to
	  play with and thus nobody knows.

	- Thiotimoline (the crystal that dissolved before the water hit it)
	  was the subject of a series of fiction stories by (I believe) 
	  Isaac Asimov.  You are the first person I have heard from to 
	  believe they were NOT intended as fiction. 

As for the differences in the Michelson-Morley experimental data,  I am
inclined to treat them as experimental error.  In any event, I recall
reading that article and being somewhat annoyed that Stine did not provide
references to back up his claim.  Flaming on a technical subject is
fine as it stimulates thought, but if you can't back it up you lose
credibility as far as I am concerned.

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

Date: 14 Jan 1982 (Thursday) 1642-EST
From: DYER at  NBS-10
Subject: Harry Stine
To:   klh at  MIT-AI
cc:   space at  MIT-AI


	Isn't he the person who also claimed (in the pages of Analog)
to have discovered, or at least found someone who had discovered,
a reactionless drive, presumably based on mechanical (e.g. gears and
pulleys and electric motors) principles?  I think that Harry (?) Stine
is a person given to the lost causes of physics (FTL, antigravity
and something-for-nothing.)  Last I heard, which was a long time
ago, he was having the predictable trouble in convincing people he
had a /real/ (now the name comes back) 'Dean Drive,' which somehow
produced thrust without an equal and opposite reaction.  Some people
will do anything for a living....

			-Landon-

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

Date: 14 Jan 1982 1712-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Harry Stein and Physics
To: klh at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC, sf-lovers at MIT-AI
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

Please dont believe what Harry Stein says about more abstract physics.
There is an excellent rebuttal to this particular article in an issue
of analog a few months later written by some graduate student.

In particular, the feeling you get from the article that physicists dont
really know as much as they pretend to, that there really may be an ether,
and that there is lots wrong with relativity is pretty much hogwash.

Stein also writes about the Dean drive, an new reactionless drive which
is really bizzare and so on.  His book, "The Third Industrial Revolution"
is quite good, and he has written much about space industrialization which
is quite good, however, after the things he writes about physics, or about
the dean drive, I wonder how correct his other information is.

				Alan

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

Date:  14 January 1982 20:43 est
From:  Tavares.WFSO at MIT-Multics
Subject:  The 8 KPH Light Drift
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 14 January 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson

Intriguing, indeed!

After reading this trans, I called Harry Stine to ask where he got the info.
He says he found it in "The Act of Creation" by Arthur Kessler.  He also sent
for a copy of a paper that was given to the American Physical Society by a
Doctor Miller ("he didn't want to give it to me-- the APS doesn't like to
admit it exists") wherein it was also described.  He says he's also seen it
in several physics books, where they "attempted to explain it away-- which is
like arguing about how many devils fit on the head of a pin.  It's a hole, it
bothers me, but it's there and it's been checked, and proven, and everything."
According to Harry, the motion is in the "right direction" to the motion of
any expected ether.  A "viscous" ether, perhaps?

(Harry, who lives in Phoenix, would love access to this mailing list in
general, but doesn't have any leads.  Can anybody help?)

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

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

16-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #81   
Date: 16 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #81
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 81

Today's Topics:
		      Harry Stine and the Dean Drive
			       Thiotimoline
			    1982 NASA Schedule
			    Analog 'hoaxes'   
			       Harry Stine
			 Harry Stein and Physics
		  Harry Stein and Physics (sri-unix.514)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri Jan 15 00:54:39 1982
To: Space@MIT-MC
From: Onyx.jeffc@Berkeley
Subject: Harry Stine and the Dean Drive
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Perhaps the most convincing argument I've ever seen that proves
that the Dean Drive is IMPOSSIBLE is the one offered by Isaac
Asimov in his autobiography, when he was discussing John
Campell's eccentricities (to put it nicely).  While I don't
remember the exact wording, it went something like this (after
explaining how it was supposed to work):  That's just fine.
Except that it violates the law of conservation of momentum, and
the law of conservation of angular momentum, and if it actually
worked I don't believe that the physicists would ever be able
to put back together again the laws of physics after the shambles
that would result.

Sigh.  You'd never know that Stine was into such mysticism from 
reading that excellent book, the Third Industrial Revolution.

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

Date: 15 Jan 1982 13:26:01-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc
Subject: Thiotimoline

   was indeed invented by Isaac Asimov. As he says in IN MEMORY YET GREEN
(vol. 1 of autobiography) he had been selling SF since very early in
college and, a decade later, was worried that he wouldn't be able to
summon the turgid prose considered appropriate for a doctoral thesis in
chemistry after developing an excellent, readable style for the SF
magazines. (A lot of his prose seems bland or flat today but his early
work was certainly much better as writing than much of what was published
then.) He accordingly wrote this fake scientific paper, "The Endochronic
Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline", which Campbell published in
a tall tales section of ASF. Another paper described side effects of
thiotimoline, and "Thiotimoline to the Stars", written for the Campbell
memorial anthology, proposed its use in space travel. (If you can't
have FTL, get up to relativistic speeds and use t- to pull your ship
back so that internal and external times appear to match.)
   Asimov also claims that after he had been grilled on general chemistry
and the contents of his thesis one of the professors asked, "And now,
\\Mr.// Asimov, what can you tell us about the properties of thiotimoline?"
at which point A had to be carried from the room.
   Incidentally, ASF has had a number of strange things show up in it, since
Campbell was given to a wide range of enthusiasms. (This is far from
uncommon in geniuses; Edison, for instance, was rare in being able to make
practical objects out of most of his ideas, and the later interests of,
for instance, Newton, can be embarassing to the historian of science.)
But I don't think it is legitimate to speak of "hoaxes" in ASF, save in
the humorous reading of the word (e.g., thiotimoline, Kelvin Throop);
so far as a large number of people have been able to discover, it has
never succumbed to the sort of behavior common in, for instance, flying
saucer magazines.

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

Date: 15 January 1982 15:09-EST
From: Robert M. Gerber <Gerber at MIT-AI>
Sender: ___115 at MIT-AI
Subject: 1982 NASA Schedule
To: SPACE at MIT-AI
cc: GERBER at MIT-AI

	1982 NASA Schedule
[From Science News V121#1 2-Jan-82]

Month	Mission		Description
=====	=============	================================
Jan	RCA-C'		communications
Feb	Westar IV	communications
Feb	Intelsat V-D	communications
March	Space Shuttle	third orbital test flight
April	INSAT-1A	communications (India)
May	Intelsat V-E	communications
June	NOAA-E		weather, search-and-rescue
June	Navy 21		navigation
July	Landsat D	communications
July	Space Shuttle	fourth orbital test flight
Aug	Telesat G	communications (Canada)
Sept	Westar V	communications
Oct	RCA-E		communications
?Oct	IRAS		IR astronomy (US/Netherlands/UK)
Nov	Space Shuttle	first operation flight
Nov	San Marco D/L	atmospheric research (US/Italy)
Dec	Intelsat VA-A	communications

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

Date: 16 January 1982 04:09-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Analog 'hoaxes'   
To: TAW at S1-A
cc: REM at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-MC

	(1) John W. Campbell personally saw the Dean Machine and
stated many times that he saw a (small) reduction in the
apparent weighht as measured by a bathroom scale when the
machine was turned on.  The machine jumped around a lot,
however.

	(2) G. Harry Stine actually touched it and states that
when turned on, it had a much stronger resistance to horizontal
motion (it was at that time turnd on its side with a push-rod
along the axis of 'thrust') when turned on than when turned off.
he took no measurements because he was not permittd to.

	(3) Several aserospace firms including Boeing and MMM
attempted to purchase the dean Machine after the famous picture
in LIFE of Dave garroway thrusting a peice of paper under the
machine.  Dean wanted about $1 million and a Nobel prize IN
ADVANCE.  i know for a fact that one aerospace firm sent an
irrevocable letter of credit worth $500,000 if signed by all of
a three-person team (two engineers and one lawyer); their
instructions wer to buy the damn thing if there wwere ANY lift
or thrust whatever, on the groudns that a major company would
get it working (and i you build airplanes you can build
spaceships if you have a drive./..)

	They were unable to examine the machine sufficiently to
be able to form an infomred conclusion.

	(4) No one knows whata happened to the original Dean
Machine.  The one described in the patent is NOT the machine
that we saw operate.

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

Date: 16 January 1982 04:12-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Harry Stine
To: DYER at NBS-10
cc: klh at MIT-AI, space at MIT-AI

G. Harry Stine is a curator of the aerospace museum, a
well-known author and cunsultant, and a private pilot of his own
airplane; and indeed a very sound engineer.  He has written a
lot about model rockets and was very influential in design of
safety equipment in that hobby.
	As to some people doing anything for a living, Harry
hasn't time to do silly thngs.  He's far too busy writing damned
good books.

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

Date: 16 January 1982 04:20-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Harry Stein and Physics
To: KATZ at USC-ISIF
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, klh at MIT-AI, sf-lovers at MIT-AI

I suspect Harry's physics is a little better than some people's
spelling.
	G. Harry Stine worked for a number of years as assistant
to Dr. (Col.) William Davis.  Now "Spacedrive" Davis was indeed
considered wrong; but he was pretty well respected even so.  Not
a crackpot.
	I thought Harry's article a bit intemperate, but I've
noticed a number of physicists who didn't seem very interested
in looking at new data either.  A few years ago we had a big
meeting on Davis Mechanics and the Dean Drive, on the theory
that if there was ANY chance of experimental data in
contradiction to relativity it would be worth presewrving.
	Dr. Robert Forward of Hughes Research wasn't too proud
to come to the meeting.  Dr. Robert Bussard hasn't been too
proud to discuss the subjhect.  True, the evidence is skimpy to
non-existent, and if you had to bet you'd have to put your money
on general relativity; but even Forward points out that in the
Einstein tensor, inertia and gravity aren't NECESSARILY equal.
Empirically they turn out to be so to about 11 decimal places,
but the Cal Tech people way there's still no really definitive
reason why they should; at least that's what I think Lee and
Lightman were saying.  Certainly Forward says it.
	It's one thing to be convinced of orthodox physical
theory and to defend it; it's quite another to become
intemperate in the defense.  Harry is probably wrong, and he
loves to rattle people's cages anyway; leave it at that, and
don't think it necessary to destroy the man.

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

Date: Fri Jan 15 15:09:50 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ARPAVAX.Onyx.jmrubin at Berkeley
Subject: Harry Stein and Physics (sri-unix.514)


	The Dean drive? That hoary fraud?  Next you'll be telling me about
a new perpetual motion device.  I suspect the science articles in Analog
have been influenced by the ghost of its most famous editor, John Campbell.
(spelling?)  As a science-fiction pulp editor, he was great.  However,
he entertained notions like Dianetics, psi, the Dean Drive, et. al.

(And Dianetics actually started in the pages of Amazing, the predecessor
to Analog.)

						Joel Rubin

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

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

17-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #82   
Date: 17 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #82
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 82

Today's Topics:
		      Absolute velocity of the Earth
			   Re: life from comets
			      Physical laws
	    Firms sign up to use less costly European rockets
			   Dean Machine History
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 January 1982 17:56-EST
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Absolute velocity of the Earth
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     The tenets of special relativity, that absolute velocity is physically
meaningless and that there is no lumeniferous ether, are generally considered
as established because of the agreement between the predictions of the
theory and experimental results.  Although there is no ether with respect
to which we can measure the velocity of the Earth, the vacuum of space is
actually filled with black body radiation at a temperature of 3 K, and
it is possible to define one's velocity with respect to this radiation.
An observer is at rest when the radiation is isotropic (independent of
direction).  An observer in motion with respect to the black body
radiation will measure a higher temperature in the direction toward which
he is moving, and a lower temperature in the direction opposite, as a
consequence of Doppler shift.  The optical absorption length for this
radiation is larger than the radius of the known universe, so the reference
frame defined by the radiation is of a cosmological scale (although not
necessarily of the entire universe).  Using balloon carried microwave
sensors, the "absolute" velocity of the Earth has been measured.  It
is something like 300 km/sec.

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

Date: Sat Jan 16 01:46:57 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley
Subject: Re: life from comets
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I wish people would not post newswire stuff to this network.  It is not
all that useful, and I am not even sure it can be legal.  What about the
copyright of the wire service?

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

Date: 16 Jan 1982 2028-EST
From: Jon Webb <WEBB at CMU-20C>
Subject: Physical laws
To: Space at MIT-MC

The Michelson-Morley experiment was one of the major problems that led
to the creation of the theory of special relativity, but if it turned
out to be in error today we would still have to keep a lot of relativity
around.  This is because physicists observe every day things that are
consistent with the "strange" predictions of relativity, like time
dilation and increase in mass with velocity.  They observe these things
in particle accelarators.  So just finding an error in M-M won't make it
possible to build FTL ships after all.

The same thing applies much more strongly to things like the Dean Drive,
of course.  If we're going to find ways around the obstacles we've
encountered, those ways will probably be at the frontiers of science,
not way back someplace which has been overlooked by mankind and Mother
Nature all these millenia.

Jon
-------

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

Date: 17 Jan 1982 0000-EST
From: JoSH <JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Firms sign up to use less costly European rockets
To: space at MIT-MC

According to a news story (Gannet) under this title, three
US companies, Western Union, Southern Pacific Comm., and
GTE have signed up for a total of 5 satellites so far on
the "mostly-French" Ariane.  At $20 million a shot that
comes to $100 million, instead of spending $125 to $135 
million at NASA (which would have used McDonnell-Douglass
Deltas).

"Despite the shuttle's potential as an efficient cargo
carrier into space, America's space transportation system
could price itself out of the market by the end of the 
decade if--as expected--NASA raises its shuttle cargo 
rates due to escalating costs of the external tanks and 
solid rocket boosters."

The story says the French completed the Ariane test flight
program last month after four launches.  The satellites
are scheduled to go up in 83 and 84.

--JoSH
-------

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

From: Marvin Minsky@MIT-AI (Sent by MINSKY@MIT-AI)
Date: 01/17/82 00:25:30
Subject: Dean Machine History

Marvin Minsky@MIT-AI (Sent by MINSKY@MIT-AI) 01/17/82 00:25:30 Re: Dean Machine History
To: space at MIT-MC, Pourne at MIT-MC, sf-lovers at MIT-MC

Shortly after the Dean drive was described in Astounding,
John Campbell published a picture of it.  I examined the picture
with a lens and managed to read the brand name of the bathroom
scale used to measure the loss of weight of the machine.
My college roommate, Roland Silver, and I conjectured correctly
that this scale had a "diode" in it that coupled the platform and the
reading device.  So we went to Sears Roebuck in Porter Square, Cambridge
and bought that very scale.

When you stand on it it reads your weight fine, but if you pump your
arms up and down -- just as did the dean machine itself --
then the weight fluctuates a lot -- with the mean weight (and even the maximum)
far below the real weight.

So then Clause Shannon and John Pierce and I wrote a sharp detailed letter
to Campbell about this.

John Campbell didn't print our letter, but he sent me (knowing I was the
instigator) a long letter that I still have here, denouncing
establishment scientists for their reactionary and unimaginative
rigidity and general intolerance.

Suitably chastened, I dropped yhe matter and continued with my
reactionary, establishment-bound studies.

Anyway, this incident jibes with Pournelle's account about
Cambell seeing the machine which "jumped around a lot"
on a bathroom scale.  I checked out all the other scales, too,
and finally found one that reads high when you bounce.  But
these were much less common.  So, possibly, Dean was
hoist by this pitiful petard.  But I maintained that this was
extremely unlikely since, obviously, he was all too familiar
with flakey, vibrating, weighing mechanisms.

  -- marvin

P.S..  I should add that much as we hated him, we loved him
greatly too, and for all he did for all of us.  And same for
G. Harry Stine.

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

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

18-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #83   
Date: 18 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #83
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 83

Today's Topics:
				News Query
			      newswire stuff
			      G. Harry Stine
			   Re: life from comets
	    Firms sign up to use less costly European rockets
			   Dean Machine History
		      Harry Stine and the Dean Drive
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun Jan 17 10:25:48 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: News Query
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


There has recently arisen at SRI-UNIX a gateway between the space
digest at MIT-MC and a USENET newsgroup (net.columbia) that came
into existence a bit before STS-2 for the primary purpose of keeping
people informed about the space program (and the space programs of
other countries -- most noticeably now is the ESA Ariane booster).
Mostly, news summaries from the news wires (AP, etc.) have gone through
it and also some other informative blurbs (I don't recall any discussion
going through it though that wouldn't have mattered)  With the new
gateway, I need a decision from ARPAland whether or not to continue
posting these news things to net.columbia or to net.space (the new
group), which feeds into the mailing list.  If I take the former action,
you will not see the news; the latter will get the news to you.
Please mail replies to me (research!sjb at Berkeley) -- for the time
being, I'll start posting news to net.space unless I hear complaints.

Adam Buchsbaum
UUCP - ucbvax!research!sjb
ARPA - research!sjb at Berkeley

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

Date: 17 Jan 1982 1153-PST
From: Bob Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: newswire stuff
To: space at MIT-MC

I disagree emphatically with
decvax!watmath!jcwinterton@Berkeley re:  posting of posting
of "newswire stuff" to the space digest. FIRST! the digest
is an internal communication without "public" distribution
and as such probably qualifies for "fair use". Second, there
happen to be many highly qualified people who are employed
by the govt. who read this list and SHOULD be aware of space
developments which appear in the wire services.

The major concern is that nothing from this digest (or any
other) be released to a public channel. As long as these
discussions pass solely between individuals in a closed
network I believe they are legal.  Technically, there is NO
"publication" taking place here.  It is actually just a
massive mailing list for communication between individuals.
Access is restricted and controlled by govt. monitoring of
the members of the net. Anyone who is on the net without
such monitoring is in violation of the law. Their further
misuse of the private communications which take place on the
net would constitute further violation.

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

Date: 17 Jan 1982 1827-CST
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: G. Harry Stine
To: space at MIT-MC

While we're on the topic, and since I haven't heard it mentioned...

Space Power, by G. Harry Stine, c. 1981, 1st printing Sept. 1981,
	pub. by ACE, $2.50 ppb.  I got mine in the Miami airport
	last October, hot off the press...
Cover contains the following phrases, among others:
	THE NEWS THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRIED TO BURY!
	THE *TRUTH* ABOUT SOLAR POWER!

Having read it (and his 3rd Ind. Rev.) my impression is that he is
truly a hard-nosed engineering type, characterized by the potential
short-sightedness (all problems can be solved through technology)
for which such types are famed.  Damn stimulating book, though.
I recommend it -- with a grain of salt if you're a humanist.

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

Date: 18 January 1982 05:04-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: life from comets
To: decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC


  why listen?

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

Date: 18 January 1982 05:07-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Firms sign up to use less costly European rockets
To: JoSH at RUTGERS
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Gary Hudson says this is substantially correct, but you ought to
look at latest AVIATION WEEK  for who wants to buy 5th
orbiter...

    Date: 17 Jan 1982 0000-EST
    From: JoSH <JoSH at RUTGERS>

    According to a news story (Gannet) under this title, three
    US companies, Western Union, Southern Pacific Comm., and
    GTE have signed up for a total of 5 satellites so far on
    the "mostly-French" Ariane.  At $20 million a shot that
    comes to $100 million, instead of spending $125 to $135 
    million at NASA (which would have used McDonnell-Douglass
    Deltas).

    "Despite the shuttle's potential as an efficient cargo
    carrier into space, America's space transportation system
    could price itself out of the market by the end of the 
    decade if--as expected--NASA raises its shuttle cargo 
    rates due to escalating costs of the external tanks and 
    solid rocket boosters."

    The story says the French completed the Ariane test flight
    program last month after four launches.  The satellites
    are scheduled to go up in 83 and 84.

    --JoSH
    -------

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

Date: 18 January 1982 05:10-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Dean Machine History
To: Marvin Minsky at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

AS you loved Dean, so loved he we all....

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

Date: 18 January 1982 05:42-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Harry Stine and the Dean Drive
To: Onyx.jeffc at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

While I am prepared--aye, even eager--to believe that we FINALLY
understand THE laws of physics, I must say, b
	given their history, that I ought to be prepared to
accept heir radical negations.

To sya that Harry, by challenging orthodoxy, has proved hiumself
fundamentally silly is to say that one understands little of the
history of science.  Harry is very probably wrong; but to say he
is uninteresting is to say more about yurself than I would...

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

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

21-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #84   
Date: 21 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #84
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 84

Today's Topics:
				wire stuff
			 Harry Stine and Science
			  Collision with skyhook
			  Question about gateway
		   pur-ee!davy's question about gateway
			      G. Harry Stine
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon Jan 18 10:18:34 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: mhtsa!eagle!ihnss!cbosg!cbosgd!mark at Berkeley
Subject: wire stuff
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I beg to differ with you.  Perhaps you can legally say that newsgroups
are only internal mailings, sent to a closed controlled set of people,
but this does not make it true.  In fact, most of the interesting arpanet
mailing lists (including space-enthusiasts) have a copy fed into USENET,
which is neither the arpanet nor tightly controlled.  Most, if not all, of
the contributions you see posted by somewhere!somewhere!somebody@Berkeley
are from somebody on USENET who would not have contributed had the digests
not been posted to USENET in the first place.  The point is, a digest is
in effect a newsletter, not mail, and as a contributor you have no control
or knowledge of who is getting it.  (This is true even on the ARPANET, not
just USENET.)

Since the space news stuff that Adam posts are already on USENET (a less
tightly controlled entity than the ARPANET) and since he retypes things
that look interesting, rather than having an automatic feed, it seems to
me there is no legal problem with the wire services.  (Obviously there would
be no problem in taking them from the newspaper, right?  Same thing.)

The real question being asked is whether the arpanet people on the space
mailing list WANT to get the news Adam posts.  The USENET people are going
to get it anyway.  The obvious thing to do is to try it for a while and
see what the arpanet people think.

	Mark Horton

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

Date: 18 Jan 1982 1119-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Harry Stine and Science
To: space at MIT-MC

I remember being extremely annoyed when Analog printed Stine's article
on relativity.  I was so annoyed that I cancelled my subscription.

The problem was NOT that Stine challenged widely held beliefs.  What
was annoying was that he was selectively myopic (look only at results
that confirm your theory) and used ad hominem arguments (scientists are
stupid/dishonest/evil, so don't believe them).

These traits are characteristic of the pseudoscientist.  For examples, try
"Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" by Martin Gardner.  I think
we can safely classify Stine's theories as pseudoscience, not because
they are wrong, but because of the way he presents them.
-------

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

Date: 20 Jan 1982 05:37:56-PST
From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!horton at Berkeley
Re: STS video on sat. transponder??
recently i saw an article about the upcoming sts video feed being on one of
the staellite transponders.  do you folks recall the details.  it
might have been a usenet only item, if so sorry to bother you with this.
or it might havE come on net.columbia,  

   thanks(
      kurt horton (pur-ee!uiucdcs!horton)

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

Date: 19 Jan 1982 22:10:09-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley

>From Network:c70  Thu Jan 14 01:50:44 1982
Mail addressed to space at mc could not be sent.
Host has been down for over a day
------- Unsent message is below -------

Date: 12 Jan 1982 11:53:05-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley
Subject:  Collision with skyhook

What is the probability that a satellite would collide with a skyhook,
both for the rotating and fixed versions?  I read somewhere that SPSs
could not be built in low orbit and transported to geosynchronous orbit
because it was probable they would experience more than one 
collision with a satellite.  Is this correct?  What would be the cross-section
of the skyhook in the regions of concentration of satellites?

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

Date: Monday, 18 January 1982  08:58-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
To: space at mit-mc
cc: king at KESTREL

	I certainly concede that this isn't a very forceful argument,
but it does constitute a plausibility argument for the assertion that
no inertialess drive, buildable form more-or-less-ordinary movable
parts, can exit.
	The argument is that there is no form of life tht uses one.
It appears that essentially every piece of mechanical engineering that
doesn't involve something like high vacuum, high temperature,
extremely high velocity, etc. appears in some form of life.  (For a
while it appeared that no form of life had rotating parts, but many
bacteria do.)
	Comments, anyone?
	As an aside, is there a mailing list which might be called
"engineering in life forms"?

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

Date: Mon Jan 18 12:34:55 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!pur-ee!davy at Berkeley
Subject: Question about gateway
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.



Is "fa.space" (the SPACE DIGEST) going away soon?  It's getting kind of 
dull to see all those neat letters in net.space, and then seeing them
2 days later in the digest.....

--Dave

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

Date: 19 Jan 1982 at 1744-PST
From: Andrew Knutsen <knutsen@SRI-UNIX>
To: space at MC
Subject: pur-ee!davy's question about gateway
Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX

	Since this question applies to usenet only, and
certainly doesnt involve space, I suggest it be discussed
in "net.news.group".

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

Date: 21 January 1982 04:20-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: G. Harry Stine
To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

If one is a "humanist" does this invariably imply a tragic
condition? that we accept fate, and give up the idea of solving
our problems thrugh science and technology?

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

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

22-Jan-82  0302	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #85   
Date: 22 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #85
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 85

Today's Topics:
			    Re: G. Harry Stine
			 Harry Stine and Science
			   Space Program Budget
			 Re: News wires and stuff
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 1982 1058-CST
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Re: G. Harry Stine
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 21-Jan-82 0320-CST

No, being a "humanist" does not (to me) imply a tragic condition, nor
disbelief in technological solutions.  It simply denies the position
that ALL problems admit solution through technology.  Even "technical"
problems can require solutions tempered by the demands of human
nature.  It just seemed to me (from reading his books) that Stine is
insufficuently aware of this.  At least, he does not CONVEY such
awareness in his writings.
-------

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

Date: 21 Jan 1982 1356-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Harry Stine and Science
To: dietz at USC-ECL
cc: katz
Remailed-date: 21 Jan 1982 1359-PST
Remailed-from: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Remailed-to: space at MIT-MC

Right on! If I had had a subscription to Analog I would have cancelled it.

However, you may have missed the excellent refutation of Stine's article
that appeared a few months later.

The danger I see, is that when people hear someone talk about space
colonies and space industry, and then hear the same person talk about
things they know has a high probability of being nonsense, they will
tend not to believe any of what is said.


				Alan
-------

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

Date: Tue Jan 19 20:14:29 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Space Program Budget
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Well, here is the first summary from the newswire I am posting.
Consider it a test of how you like it (ARPAland) as well as being
informative...

The chairman of the House Subcommittee on Science and Technology
said that the Reagan budget plans could threaten our space program.
The 1983 fiscal budget calls for $6.5 billion for NASA (about what
it is now)  Not only could this hurt our planetary program, but also
threaten the shuttle program.  Orbiter 104 (the fourth shuttle) could
be put in question as well as a proposed fifth shuttle.  While the
Reagan administration has expressed interest in a fifth shuttle,
they have not offered any financing for it.  As per the planetary
program, the deep space network, which receives signals from unmanned
probes, such as Voyager and Pioneer, could be hurt, as well as jobs.
Also threatened is the Centaur upper stage project, designed to launch
payloads once deployed from the shuttle's cargo bay.

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

Date: 21 Jan 1982 1507-PST
Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL
Subject: Re: News wires and stuff
From: BILLW at SRI-KL
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]21-Jan-82 15:07:23.BILLW>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 21 Jan 1982 0302-PST

Are we debating whether its legal/desirable for newswire stories
from usenet to appear on the ARPANet, or newswires stories from the
ARPANet to appear on usenet ?  Just who all has automatic newswire
searching software anyway ? (aside from SAIL and SRI on ARPANet).

I for one agreee that there are few legal problems, since it is
essentially the same as retyping articles from the paper unless
you start distributing everything in real time...
And I also DO want to read the stories that are being submitted...

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

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

24-Jan-82  0305	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #86   
Date: 24 Jan 1982 0304-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #86
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 86

Today's Topics:
			 Harry Stine and Science
			 Collisions with skyhook
			  Copyrights & retyping
			   SPACE Digest V2 #85
			      Administrivia
			    Skyhook collisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 1982 0805-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

	Date: 21 Jan 1982 1356-PST
	From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
	Subject: Harry Stine and Science
	
	Right on! If I had had a subscription to Analog I would have cancelled
	it.
	
	However, you may have missed the excellent refutation of Stine's article
	that appeared a few months later.
	
[Sigh.  Am I the only person that sees an irony in the above two sentences?
I fail to see how a person can subscribe to a magazine, enjoy dozens, if
not hundreds, of articles, and then cancel because of one bad piece.
Hasn't anybody ever heard of Letters to the Editor??  --Tom]

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

From: CARLF@MIT-AI
Date: 01/22/82 15:41:41
Subject: Collisions with skyhook

CARLF@MIT-AI 01/22/82 15:41:41 Re: Collisions with skyhook
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC
	A.exp at Berkeley asked about the problem of satellites running
into a skyhook. It does indeed seem to be a problem. A five meter cable
would be hit by something big enough to smash it about once a month.
This is based upon data from an article called "Formation of a
spacecraft debris belt" (I think) in a book called "Space systems and
their interaction with the environment" (I think) which is #71 in the
series "Progress in aeronautics and astronautics" (I know). 
	If two spheres of different radius smash into each other at 10
km/sec there are two possible outcomes. If the small one is
sufficiently tiny, it will only produce a crater on the big one. If the
spheres are closer in size, they will both be totally fragmented. The
ratio of projectile mass to target mass above which both will be
destroyed is called the "catastrophic limit". It depends on the
material of the target. It has values which range
from 2600, for soft aluminium, to 120,000 for glass. Basalt has an
intermediate value of 25,000. I adopted this value for the material of
the skyhook. If we assume a five meter diameter cable to be as hard to
break as a five meter diameter sphere, the cable will be broken by a 17
cm object, making the conservative assumption that the object is moving
at 10 km/sec rather than the 7.7 km/sec of most LEO objects.
	The most dangerous zone lies between 700 km and 1200 km
altitude. If we assume that we are putting up the skyhook in 2020, and
that 510 satellites and items of debris are launched each year until
then, then the flux of different-sized objects is as follows:

	MASS (kg)	FLUX (impacts / m^2 / yr)

	1000		5 e-7
	10		5 e-6
	0.1		1 e-5
	0.001		2 e-4
	0.00001		1

We see that a 500 km section of 5m cable will be hit by a breaker about
12 times a year.
	Clearly we have to sweep out LEO. Fortunately, NORAD is
tracking nearly 80% of the objects in orbit, and the rest can be found
if need be. Useful satellites can be tied onto the skyhook, and useless
ones can be shot down. This is easy to do: just take a big chunk of
someting soft up to the appropriate point on the skyhook, and drop it
into the path of the garbage. The fragments which result will be moving
too slow to stay in orbit, and will fall into the air, to be burned up.

				-- Carl

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

From: TK@MIT-AI
Date: 01/22/82 15:45:16
Subject: Copyrights & retyping

TK@MIT-AI 01/22/82 15:45:16 Re: Copyrights & retyping
To: space at MIT-MC
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the copyright issue depends
not in the least upon whether you re-type, or even paraphrase a
copyrighted article.  The only possible way in which it is not a
copyright infringement to report news stories in this forum is if this
use falls within the doctrine of "fair use" which, roughly, is use for
individual scholarly purposes.  That one is hard to call, indeed, but
the question of whether you retype an article has no relevance to the
discussion.  Copyrights are just as infringed (or not, as the case may
be) by hand copying a document as by making a Xerox copy.  The
technology and the medium are irrelevant.

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

Date: 22 Jan 1982 14:16:57-PST
From: Cory.kline at Berkeley
To: E@MIT-MC, SPACE@MIT-MC
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #85

Regarding the newswire controversy, it seems to  me that stories re-
transmitted a day (or several days) late have scant claim to be 
catagorized as "news".	Feature stories are another matter, of course.
	Gary D. Kline

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

Date: 23 Jan 1982 23:59PST
From: The Moderator <OTA at S1-A>
To:   space at MIT-MC  
Subject: Administrivia

I hope the messages in this digest will be the last debating the issue of
redistribution of news service stories.  Not, of course, because the issue
is unimportant, but because this is not the proper format for such a
discussion.  TK's comment about paraphasing stories is, I believe,
correct.  Since, news service stories appear from time to time, in all the
digests and many of the mailing lists I know of, I'm not convinced that
SPACE needs to be the first to renounce their use.  As long as people
exercise restraint, I think things will be OK, at least for now.  Brief
and Concise are the key concepts that should be used in including news
stories (from whatever source).

I will continue to discuss this issue with anyone who is interested, but
privately, not in the SPACE Digest.
	The Moderator,
	Ted Anderson

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

Date: 23 Jan 1982 0233-PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
To:   space at MIT-MC  
Subject: Skyhook collisions

For an earth skyhook to be practical its material must have a tensile
strength on the order of 500,000 kilograms per square centimeter.  Thus
a cross section of one cm**2 at ground height could hoist 500 tonnes, and
10 cm**2 (i.e. a radius of less than 2 cm) could transport hefty
5000 tonnes on each run, which should be enough for a whole lot of
purposes.  At the point of maximum thickness the skyhook would have
10 to 100 times the cross sectional area, i.e. a radius of 5 to 20 cm.
Because of the exponential nature of shape of the taper function, most
of the skyhook's length is at the smaller rather than the larger radius.
The average radius is thus less than about 10 cm, about 50 times smaller
than the enormous five meters in CARLF's calculation.  This cuts the
hit rate, keeping the other assumptions the same, to about one every
four years.
	In any case, sweeping out low earth orbit is a good idea, and
not only for the sake of skyhooks.

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

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

25-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #87   
Date: 25 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #87
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 87

Today's Topics:
			      G. Harry Stine
			  Copyrights & retyping
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 January 1982 20:58-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: G. Harry Stine
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: 21 January 1982 04:20-EST
    From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
    If one is a "humanist" does this invariably imply a tragic
    condition? that we accept fate, and give up the idea of solving
    our problems thrugh science and technology?
A word means whatever I say it means, no more, no less. - Humpty Dumpty
(Humanism is the quality of being human, so I guess we're all humanists.)
(Another definition: a philosophy in which man, his interests, AND
 DEVELOPMENT are made central and dominant, tending to exalt the
 cultural and RATIONAL elements of man rather than the SUPERNATURAL
 OR SPECULATIVE. That would seem to include science and technology
 and exclude astrology and religion.)
[Definitions from Doubleday dictionary 1975, upper-casification by REM
 for emphasis.]

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

Date: 25 January 1982 02:41-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
To: TAW at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

More interestingly, if you cancel your subscriptoin, how will
you ever see the refutations?
	Let me repeat, Harry loves ratling people's cages.

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

Date: 25 January 1982 02:45-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Copyrights & retyping
To: TK at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

While I am as zealous for the rights of authors as anyone you
know, let me point out that as a pratical matter copyrights are
licenses to sue; and precisely what remedy does one get? In the
case of material put on this net, whom do you sue; for what; and
what damages does one ask for?  Obviously if someone starts
putting valuable properties onto the net, the authors and
publishers are going to put a stop to it if they feel they are
being harmed; but often what they will do is ignore the
situation (thus not giving actual permission, which they'd be
loathe to do, but not trying to stop things either...)

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

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

26-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #88   
Date: 26 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #88
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 88

Today's Topics:
			 Subscription Cancelling
		      Collisions with skinny skyhook
			       Cage Shaking
			       Cage Shaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 1982 1218-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Subscription Cancelling
To: space at MIT-MC

Although I cancelled my subscription (actually, I let it run out, it
was almost up), I DID see the response in the later issue.

About shaking cages:  printing something that is pretty clearly false
serves no one.  After all, Stine's article was comparable to the nonsense
we see printed about UFO's, ESP, life-after-death and all that.  If he
wants to turn Analog into another National Enquirer that's fine with
me; just don't expect me to pay for it.
-------

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

From: CARLF@MIT-AI
Date: 01/25/82 12:59:41
Subject: Collisions with skinny skyhook

CARLF@MIT-AI 01/25/82 12:59:41 Re: Collisions with skinny skyhook
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
	Mr. Moravec is quite correct about the width of the skyhook.
I erroneously assumed that anything that strong had to be big. However,
I believe that he has erred in his calculation of the damage rate for the 
skinny skyhook. It is true that the skinny version has 1/50 of the area 
of the fat version, but this does not reduce the damage rate by a factor of 
50, since it is now possible to break the cable with very much smaller
projectiles. Instead of a 17cm diameter projectie, we now need only a 0.34cm
projectile, which would wiegh about 0.2 g. The flux of such particles is 
about 0.1 impacts / m^2 / yr. A 500 km section of 5 cm wide cable has 
an area of 25,000 m^2, and thus will be hit 2,500 times per year, or about
once every four hours.
	The problem is that the danger rises exponentially with the skinniness
of the cable. It is hard to see how to solve this.

			-- Carl

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

Date: 25 Jan 1982 1252-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Cage Shaking
To: space at MIT-MC, pourne at MIT-MC

All this talk of cage shaking has prompted me to do a little of my own...

My question is: why should the government be spending anything on space?
(This is an instance of the more general question "why should the government
be spending money on anything?")

A common argumnt is "It's good for the country/world".  Really?  If it was
so good, why wouldn't those with the money invest in it?

National security:  I fail to see how sending billion dollar robots out of
the solar system helps national security.  If this is the purpose of NASA,
why isn't NASA part of DOD?

Scientific Research:  Research is good, @i(all else being equal).  What do
you give up when you send a Voyager out there?  

Preserving the species:  If a group of people want to get together and
build a space colony to survive a nuclear war, I'll let them.  But why
should I help pay for it?

Other arguments: "Without challenge, man will soon whither ..." or
"Future generations will judge us by what we did" -- Fine.  You are 
entitled to your beliefs.  Just don't force me to go along by taking my
tax money.


Comments, rebuttals, bric-bats, poison keyboard netnotes are welcome...
-------

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

Date: 26 January 1982 05:11-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Cage Shaking
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC

"THERE REMAIN those enterprises of such great value to all, and
of so little value to any one, as to require public investment."
		Adam Smith, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS

What institution has the task of looking ahead twenty years?
Surely not investment combines; stock companies usually look at
the quarterly report.  Families once worried about the future,
but the Government as a matter of policy has ruined the family
(death taxes) as a long-term institution.  So: if it's desirable
to have basic research and find out if we're alone in the
universe and whether or not there are resources out there--who
is going to do it?

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

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

27-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #89   
Date: 27 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #89
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 89

Today's Topics:
			    Government Funding
		    GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR SPACE
		      Collisions with skinny skyhook
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 1982 0805-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Government Funding
To: space at MIT-MC, pourne at MIT-MC


   "THERE remain those enterprises of such great value to all, and of
    so little value to any one, as to require public investment." - A.S.

I reject this.  Who judges the value of a project?  Not the person forced
to contribute.  If it is of so little value to John Doe, why should he
pay for it?

Government investment (public investment is a misnomer) removes any choice
the unwilling taxpayers have.  It puts the "public good" above individual
rights.

In support of this, I point to all those pork-barrel projects that no sane
businessman would invest in.  Every one of them can be justified by a similar
argument.  Scientific research is more pork-barrel-ly than we'd like to think.
-------

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

Date: 26 January 1982 23:03-EST
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR SPACE
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING ALL NON-DEFENSE RELATED
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR SPACE, PROVIDED AT THE SAME TIME WE ALSO
ELIMINATED ALL OTHER GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS EXCEPT FOR DEFENSE, CRIME
PREVENTION, AND THE COURTS.  THIS MEANS, IN PARTICULAR, THAT WE
STOP SUPPORTING THE WELFARE SCUMS.

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

Date: 27 January 1982 00:24-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Collisions with skinny skyhook
To: HPM at MIT-MC, CARLF at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Sigh. Because a skyhook travels at non-orbital velocity everywhere except
at its center (geosync for fixed hook, LEO for spinning hook), it
sweeps out a volume of space, coliding with native material at near
orbital velocities, unlike normal small orbiting objects which bump
into other orbiting objects only at perturbation velocities which
are a couple orders of magnitude less than orbital velocities.
Thus skyhooks have much greater problems, even in absense of manmade
orbiting projectiles, than small orbiting satellites do.

Does that make skyhooks impractical, after all there will always be
a rain of new cosmic debris drifting into Earth orbit to replenish
any area that we sweep clean?

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

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

28-Jan-82  2052	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #90   
Date: 28 Jan 1982 1606-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #90
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 90

Today's Topics:
		      Moderator filtration of flames
		       Government Funding of Space
			   SPACE Digest V2 #89
			      State of union
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 1982 0953-CST
From: CMP.MKSMITH at UTEXAS-20
Subject: Moderator filtration of flames
To: space at MIT-MC

"Welfare scum"? Why is such nonsense apearing on the Space Bboard?
It is also amusing to see the Libertarians (I assume) who are heavy users
of this medium complaining about governments spending their money on
things like Arpanets and space research. I guess its a normal survival
drive. Those sucking at the teat want the milk for themselves.
-------

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

Date: 27 Jan 1982 0830-EST
From: INNERS at CMU-20C
Subject: Government Funding of Space
To: space at MIT-MC

This might well belong in Poli-Sci, but since the issue was brought
up here...

First, if you accept the argument Dietz gives there is no special reason
to fund even defense.  If I want to be defended, I will voluntarily
contribute to my local police, local NRA chapter, national military of
my choice, etc.  Everyone (except maybe the most radical Libertarians)
agrees that some functions require mandatory contributions.

Space exploration, in common with basic research, has the property that
the benefits do not accrue directly to the organization performing the
work.  The benefits are distributed among many people who did not invest.
Unless you impose severe restrictions on information flow, use of
technology, mobility of employees, etc. there is no way that I, as
owner of a firm doing (for example) free-fall medical research, can
make every beneficiary pay for the benefits he is getting.  I can't
even get back my investment in all likelyhood.  But the benefits have
historicaly greatly outweighted the costs of such research.

In the not-so-distant future space industrialization/exploration/
colonization has the potential to significantly improve conditions
for the entire society.  Again, there is no way for an investor to
recover much profit from this.  While it is not worthwhile for any
small group of people to finance space exploration, a larger group
finds it worthwhile since the cost can be spread thinner.
				-- Mike Inners
-------

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

Date: Wednesday, 27 January 1982  09:08-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
To: SPACE at MIT-MC, dietz at usc-ecl
cc: King at KESTREL
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #89

	It   might   be   possible   to   have   a    non-governmental
organizationproperly develop space.  However, this is quite  difficult
for several reasons:
	1) Much of what is necessary to develop space is unpatentable,
often because it  is in  the realm of  pure research.   An example  of
another invention that  grew out of  pure research is  semiconductors,
which of course grew  out of solid state  physics research.  It  would
not have been  possible for a  company to recover  the costs of  their
research, even by patenting the transistor, because other devices were
promptly invented, using the same  physics.  Of course there was  more
than enough profit for everyone, but this isn't always the case.
	2) Patents  are only  good for  seventeen years.   Even  those
pieces of space hardware that are patentable may not reach the peak of
their utilization within seventeen years of conception.
	3) While this may  seem like a pragmatic  rather than a  moral
argument, governments  have  historically  been  involved  in  blazing
trails.  Oil companies drill  for oil on the  ocean floor, but it  was
the US who  invented SCUBA and  exotic gas mixtures.   Railroads is  a
customary example (although the government  probably did more than  it
had to or should have done).
	4) It is reasonable  to suppose that space  is just about  now
turning the corner and should  now be privatized.  This will  probably
bedone in a few  years.  I understand that  there are private  bidders
for STS-5.  The US  government will retain a  few, to fulfill its  own
needs, just as they own buildings to fulfill their own needs.
	5) I  would  not  be  opposed to  a  tax  checkoff  for  space
research.  I think with such a  checkoff it would fare better than  it
now does.  I  have previously  proposed (elsewhere) that  a person  be
able to  designate what  their  taxes are  used  for (although  in  my
original proposal the TOTAL would be fixed - each year there would  be
a referendum to choose among keeping taxes the same, raising them  n%,
or lowering them n%, where  n is set by  congress each year (large  at
the start or end of a war, small when things weren't changing rapidly,
never less than some constant, probably 2).  

					RMK

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

Date: 27 January 1982 16:42-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: State of union
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

I didn't hear one word about space in Reagan's state-of-union speech.
Did anybody else? My guess is he wants to cut spending in everything
except defense, and that means cut spending in space in particular.
(Defense is a misnomer. We don't have any defense, we have only
strategic deterrent. But that's a matter for ARMS-D rather than SPACE.)

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

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

29-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #91   
Date: 29 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #91
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 91

Today's Topics:
			 Subscription Cancelling
			 Indictments Handed Down
		       Humanists and Technologists
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 January 1982 05:21-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Subscription Cancelling
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

It must be extremely nice to be so very sure of being correct
about so very many subjects.  I wish I were.

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

Date: Thu Jan 28 18:07:36 1982
To: Space@MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!alice!sjb@Berkeley
Subject: Indictments Handed Down
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


handed down by Grand Juries charging that they conspired to
defraud the government on construction costs for the space
shuttle.  One company, Mayfair Construction Co., has already
pleaded guilty, faces a $10,000 fine for its actions, but
has reached an agreement with the Justice Department under
which it won't be charged with any criminal dealings with
the other two companies, Capital Communication Corp. and
New World Construction Co., or with the three executives,
Phillip W. Akwa, Arthur L. Boschen, and James T. White, Jr.,
in return for its guilty plea.

Mayfair had been given four contracts totaling $13 million to build
ground support for the STS program.  Capital worked jointly with
Mayfair, while Mayfair subcontracted New World.  The defendants
``hid their profit-sharing arrangements from NASA'' and planned to
inflate costs, hours, and labor to NASA.

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

Date: Mon Jan 25 23:01:28 1982
To: Space@MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer@Berkeley
Subject: Humanists and Technologists
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


any major social problem has ever been solved by a `humanist' or other form
of social theorist.  Typically, it has been engineers and hard scientists (those
materialistic, crass, and soulless men) that have provided the solutions to
the major social and political problems of their day.  Slavery and hard,
grinding, muscle labor at poverty pay, to take two classic examples from
the 19th century, weren't eliminated by the wailing of philosophers but by the
designs of engineers, and by the money of financiers.
	Admittedly, this is largely counter-intuitive.  It seems unreasonable
that social and political problems can magically be solved by throwing devices
at them.  I suspect the reason that this apparent paradox holds is that people
will generally optimize their own condition subject to constraints, and the
constraints are always a lack in some way or other of resources.  Technology
tends to free resources, thus loosening the constraints and providing a higher
level of `potential' for most individuals, which they will happily take.
	The previous paragraph wasn't all that good an explanation of the
phenomenon.  The interested reader is referred to Smith[1776], Friedman[1957]
`Capitalism and Freedom', or Friedman and Friedman `Free to Choose' [1979].
	These references won't tell you a great deal about technology, but
emphasize the failure of `humanists' or `social engineers' to do anything
very productive in terms of ameliorating the human condition.  One wishes
that Prime Minister Trudeau could read...

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

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

30-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #92   
Date: 30 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #92
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 92

Today's Topics:
		       HUMANISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS
		       Technologists and Humanists 
			Government funded research
		      Technologists "vs." Humanists
		    Government Funding of Exploration
	    "humanists" and "technologists" NOT disjoint sets!
		     Re: Government Funding of Space
		     Re: Technologists and Humanists
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 January 1982 07:24-EST
From: Steve Kudlak <FFM at MIT-MC>
Subject: HUMANISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS
To: SPACE at MIT-MC


Actually, I honestly can't see what humanists and
technologists fight over so much. Both want to see
the world changed for the better.
Humanists(philospher's artists writers etc) infleuence
the world more indirectly but they do exert, in my
view a considerable influence. By pointing out things
they see in the world and how they feel about it
artists and writers definitely influence the social
climate that the technologist types work in and the
like. Technology types that I have known have been seriously
influenced by "works of art" especially literature
and this causes them to do things differently than
they would if they were not so influenced.

Technology types do things that at thier best give power
to people. Like the power to express my ideas to many
people in many different areas quickly. Most technology
types are not cold, crass individuals at all, and 99%
of them bleed if you prick them.

The problem is dealing with stereotypes of what 
artists and technologists are like. These stereotypes
are usually quite funny. I STILL MEET PEOPLE WHO THINK
THAT COMPUTER HACKERS TALK IN A DULL MONOTONE VOICE LIKE
ROBOTS IN SOME OLD MONSTER MOVIE.

Once upon a time science, technology and art were not
considered mutually exclusive realms. It would be nice
if we could recapture some of that rather than fighting about
which is 'better' and 'more useful'.


Have fun
Sends Steve

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

Date: 29 Jan 1982 0842-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Technologists and Humanists 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Having met quite a few people in both the Arts and the Sciences, (I am
an engineer myself) I have noticed that there seem to be far more
technologists influenced by art, or even active participants in artistic
endeavours, than vice versa.  Many of the technologists I have known
embrace art and see it in their work, while the artists (actors, literary
types, film types) I have met seem to be afraid of, or claim to despise
technology.  This is, of course, not a general rule.  But it is far
too common to be comfortable with.

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

Date: 29 Jan 1982 1317-EST
From: MPH at MIT-XX
Subject: Government funded research
To: space at mc

To those who question the usefulness of government funded research, I would
like to point out that the electronic digital computer, as we now know it,
was originally developed by research funded directly by the U.S.
government (e.g.  ENIAC, EDVAC) and by the British government (e.g.
EDSAC).  It took commercial development to make the computer ubiquitous;
however, it seems quite implausible that any responsible profit-making
enterprise would have undertaken computer research and development in the
late 1940's without the foundation laid by the government projects.  For
instance, the very first commercial computer company (the Electronic
Control Company, 1946) was founded by the leaders of the ENIAC project on
the basis of the ENIAC patents.  Even with this head start, it had severe
cash flow problems, and survived only by being bought out by a larger
company.

"It is a noteworthy feature of our American system that much of the
computer field owes its existence to the generosity of our government in
giving to its employees and university contractors the rights to
*inventions made with government funds*" H.H.  Goldstine, The Computer from
Pascal to von Neumann, p 71 (my emphasis).


-------

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

Date: 29 Jan 1982 1127-CST
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Technologists "vs." Humanists
To: space at MIT-AI

First of all, I would lump myself in with the "Technologists" w.r.t.
life goals and modus operandi.  However, the statement about "nothing
of significance being accomplished by `humanists'" cannot go unchallenged.
I will simply point to one of the more spectacular existence proofs:
amongst the various Nobel prizes for what amount to technologists, there
is tucked away an item known as the Nobel Peace Prize.  I shall leave
the reader to fill in the details.  'Nuff said?

Now maybe we can go back to talking about Space??
-------

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

Date: Fri Jan 29 18:52:55 1982
To: Space@MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer@Berkeley
Subject: Government Funding of Exploration
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


capitalists haven't ever been able to explore new frontiers without some
government assistance.  Even the enthusiastically laissez-faire 19th
Century British governments supported financially and legally extraterritorial
firms.  A classic example is the East India Company, and, as jcwinterton
pointed out, the Hudson's Bay Company.
	The anti-space enthusiasts may have a point, though.  Contrary to
popular leftist belief, an Empire doesn't usually materially benefit the
Imperial nation.  Britain bled itself white subsidizing Canada, Australia,
India and South Africa, and didn't exactly make a killing on the American
colonies.  Space will, one suspects, ultimately be of tremendous benefit to
the human race - but that portion of it that remains on Terra herself may
not be the principal beneficiaries.
	Oh, well, with any luck, the only people on Earth by 2200 will all be
amed Proxmire - and their heads firmly rooted in the sand.
				Cheers,
					Rick.

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

Date: Fri Jan 29 10:32:47 1982
To: Space@MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!floyd!houxi!ihnss!ihps3!pcl@Berkeley
Subject: "humanists" and "technologists" NOT disjoint sets!
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


	       welfare"  [Random House College Dictionary]

I take strong exception to the sharp dichotomy watmath!pcmcgeer assumes
between humanists and technologists!  I consider myself to be both, and
see many others here at work and on these nets (Usenet & ARPAnet) who I
would describe similarly.  And it's not just that I'm a technologist while
sitting at my desk, and a humanist when considering the best remedy to living
in an unratified state - we can be both at the same time!  Of course, *some*
*activities* may fall into just one category or the other, and it is
(unfortunately) possible to find some technologists who are clearly not
humanists.

On the point pcmcgeer was addressing, I think it is those of us who
are *more* than just technologists who are in a position to affect society
the most.  The technology by itself doesn't tell you how to get it out
of the lab, where to put it, how to use it, or even WHY ANYONE SHOULD
BOTHER!

This point applies to more than just the topic of this news group/digest,
and should probably be in HUMAN-NETS, but it does seem to have some
connection to the 'popular' argument against funding for space ("Why not
spend all that money on something that will benefit the masses?").  If
ALL we are is technologists, or even if that's how the 'public'
perceives us (and we perceive ourselves), we won't be able to refute that
argument effectively.

					Paul Lustgarten
					Bell Labs - Indian Hill

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

Date: Fri Jan 29 14:23:00 1982
To: Space@MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton@Berkeley
Subject: Re: Government Funding of Space
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


small-companies-are-good), we get the problem that no private organization
is big enough to finance space exploration and research.  In the last big
exploratory push, things were financed by people who had every right to
expect profits from the ventures.  Some of the funding organizations
were governments but not in the sense of governments today.  The king of
Spain financed Columbus for profit (territory, resources) and the
Company of Gentleman Trading our of Hudson's Bay had exactly the same
motive.  Because of our *advanced* technology, we are now able to explore
beyond the boundaries of our present space conveyance, and to venture
into the next ocean.  We have even managed to explore, briefly, the next
island.  Now, if a PRIVATE consortium of investors could be LEGALLY
brought together, I wonder if we wouldn't be a lot further than we are?
Present governments tend to be monolithic and conservative to the point
where they timidly take mousy-steps where giant-steps are needed.  Mind you,
to take giant-step you have to take RISKS!  Not only do you have to risk
money, you have to risk LIVES.  We honor those pioneers who gave their
lives in settling our continent and romanticize about them greatly.  Life
wasn't regarded as cheap in those days, no matter what you may read.  Realism
simply demanded the risks be taken.  The population pressure was the cause.
We are coming to the same pressure levels in the global village.  If there
are too many of us here, we will have to go there.  If some go there for
breathing room, others will follow to get thinking room too.  History does
repeat, but with some skewing.  The present skew seems to have to do with
bureaucratic inertial and general tail covering.  Grrrrr.

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

Date: Fri Jan 29 21:35:00 1982
To: Space@MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton@Berkeley
Subject: Re: Technologists and Humanists
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I expect that this is due to the feeling that there must be more to living
than hacking away at some scientific persuit, eating, sleeping, having kids,
etc.  People in the arts already know this, and probably have no inclination
to seek other horizons to expand because of the diversity that they already
have.
     How many technologists do you know that have embraced other technologies
than their own on a *for interest* basis?  I can think of very few....

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

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

31-Jan-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #93   
Date: 31 Jan 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #93
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 93

Today's Topics:
			 ARPANET Withholding Tax?
		      Technologists vs Humanists    
		       Technologists and Humanists 
		      Technologists "vs." Humanists
		     Re: Government Funding of Space
		     Re: Technologists and Humanists
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  30 January 1982 16:18 est
From:  Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject:  ARPANET Withholding Tax?
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 30 January 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson

The first part of almost every message I have gotten over the past three
or so days has been missing (where "message" means each individual note
in each digest shipment).  Whas hoppnin.

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

Date: 30 Jan 1982 2322-PST
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Technologists vs Humanists    
To:   space at MIT-MC  


First, apoligies to everyone on SPACE for discussing what is probably
not an appropiate topic for this list.  But since the subject came up...

Saying technology is more important than the humanities is stupid, since
technology, the APPLICATION of scientific knowledge, has to be directed
by social goals determined by the study of the humanities (and social
"sciences").  However, saying humanities is more important than
technology is equally stupid, since man is, above all else, a TECHNOLOGICAL
animal.  Our use of tools, more than anything else, has contributed to
our current state of civilization.  Trying to understand Man without his
tools (please, no comments on sexist language!) is a fruitless endevour
that will ultimately lead to failure.

One problem we face is that there are significant numbers of people who
believe that technology, in and of itself, can solve all problems.  This
is wrong, since those very problems CANNOT be defined or specified by
a strict examination of technological alternatives (although some constraints
as to what is physically possible can be supplied by technology) - one
MUST appeal to the knowledge lodged in the study of Man, the humanities.

Another problem we face is the presence of a large number of people who
believe that Man's tools and his tool making capacity should be
ignored when examining the proper role of our race in the universal
scheme of things.  One cannot make ANY decisions about what Man should
do or should become without examining how Man interacts with the
physical Universe - and this is the domain of Science and Technology.

Frankly, I have no doubts that there are far more people causing the
second problem than the first.  At least most technologists believe
that they SHOULD be aware of the Humanities, while many poeple
in the Humanities feel no obligation to understand the first
principles of Science and Technology.  So while we need more people
knowledgable in both areas, the lack of technological understanding
among the people studying the Humanities seems to be the most
severe problem we are currently facing.

Jim

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

Date: 31 January 1982 03:39-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Technologists and Humanists 
To: TAW at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

If you burned all the art, people would be miserable but alive.

If you burned all the technology, about 75% of the population
would starve.

Which should we do?


(Maybe neither?)

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

Date: 31 January 1982 03:45-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Technologists "vs." Humanists
To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20
cc: space at MIT-AI

Which Nobel Peace Prize winners have really advanced the cause
of Peace?

As opposed to those who have managed to impress the right
people?

Indeed: how DOES one advance the cause of peace? Did Pacifist in
WWII advance the cause of peace? Or did Joe and Willy (and
General Patton)?  Is Jane Fonda, or a US Army  paratrooper lieutenant,
more likely to advance the cause of peace today?

Was Appius Claudius the Blind right when he said "If thou
wouldst have peace, be thou then prepared for war," or is paying
Danegeld a better approach (oops: don't needlessly irritate the
totalitarians, they MEAN it...)

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

Date: 31 January 1982 03:52-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Government Funding of Space
To: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	If a private company SUCCESSFULLY manages to make
profits in space, it will instantly be broken up as a monopoly...

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

Date: 31 January 1982 03:56-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Technologists and Humanists
To: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Sir: you ought to come to some of my parties at AAAS meetings
and MEET some REAL techologists; a more diversified group I
don't know.  Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that Kantrowitz,
Dyson, Minsky, Forward, Anderson, Ruffini, Benford (Benford**2,
actually), Bussard, etc. have no "humanistic" interests?

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

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

01-Feb-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #94   
Date: 01 Feb 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #94
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 94

Today's Topics:
			     Tech vs Humanist
			 duplication of articles
			   Appropriate Quote...
			 Reply to Rick at watmath
			  Humanism vs Technology
			      poking in here
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun Jan 31 06:00:51 1982
To: Space@MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!Rick@Berkeley
Subject: Tech vs Humanist
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


	Frankly, I really didn't mean to start all of this...
	My apologies to all on net.space, and my absolute last word on the
subject.
	First, it should be pointed out that no one ever claimed that ignorance
of the humanities was bliss, or at least not harmful.  It was claimed that
no major moral or social problems have ever been solved by that rather 
unfortunate group that describe themselves as `social engineers'.  I'm 
still waiting for a counter example.
	The point that was made was that typically, merchants and technologists
solved the problems because *they saw a social need*.  The typical action of
the humanist to the problem was either to ignore it, or to justify it (read
Aristotle on the subject of slavery, for instance).
	There are some prominent thinkers in the humanities whose works
deserve attention.  Friedman is an excellent example.  So is Easton.
Toynbee and Hobbes are first-rate reading, and a must for anyone who
wishes to understand history.
	However ( again with the notable exception of Milton Friedman ) the
current rather sad collection of scholars that dominate the thinking of the
humanities can provide us with no solutions to our current problems.  Rather
than attempting to increase human freedom, the current intellectual fashion
is to curtail it.  Rather than attempting to expand and increase human wealth,
the current fashion is the age of limits.  And rather than attempting to
master the basics of the technologies that have taken us from an impoverished,
rural culture to the mightiest, wealthiest and most knowledgeable society this
planet has ever seen, there is a popular intellectual fashion to argue that
technological solutions to technological problems should not be pursued,
because *that would create a privileged class on whom the ignorant would
be independent*.  There are few sentiments that are more ominous than this
war cry of the new barbarians.
	Sorry I can't be cheerier about these characters, but most of us
have seen far too much of the Naders, the Ehrlichs, the Fondas and the
Trudeaus to have many illusions about humanists in the 1980s.
				Rick.

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

Date: Sun Jan 31 14:38:43 1982
To: Space@MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!cjp@Berkeley
Subject: duplication of articles
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


1
2
3
4
5
6 (ARPAVAX blank lines: how many get lost?)

I'm getting real tired of reading the same articles in fa.space
as I read yesterday in net.space.  Is there any way to avoid
this?  For example, could the fa.space moderator digestify
separately the stuff from UNIXland and distribute it only to
ARPA sites?
			Charles J. Poirier (duke!cjp)

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

Date: 31 Jan 1982 1538-PST
Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL
Subject: Appropriate Quote...
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW@SRI-KL>
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]31-Jan-82 15:38:37.BILLW>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 31 Jan 1982 0302-PST

"There are two kinds of fools:
  One says 'This is old, and therefore good',
  And the other says 'This is new, and therefore better'"

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

Date: Sun Jan 31 17:24:45 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!vax135!harpo!utah-cs!lepreau at Berkeley
Subject: Reply to Rick at watmath
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


If you're going to subject us to this hero-worship of Friedman and company
for God's sakes at least spare us the arrogance of phrases like "most of us"
when describing your own dislike of the Naders and Ehrlichs and your
idolatry of the likes of old Milt.

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

From: RWK@MIT-AI
Date: 02/01/82 02:45:12
Subject: Humanism vs Technology

RWK@MIT-AI 02/01/82 02:45:12 Re: Humanism vs Technology
To: POURNE at MIT-AI
CC: SPACE at MIT-AI
As I see it, Humanism is not just concerned with Art, but with
such important questions as whether to burn all the technology.
Of course, there is an obvious answer, and there are stupid
humanists, just as there are Technologists who think they
wouldn't mind living in a post nuclear era as long as we
teach the Ruskies a lesson.  But for the most part, there
are no Technologists, merely clever Humanists!  (See what you
can do with words!)

BTW, ever notice that there doesn't seem to be a word like
Technologism?

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

Date: Mon Feb  1 00:14:08 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!yale-com!harley at Berkeley
Subject: poking in here
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


first i note that talking of a dualism of technologists & humanists is
like giving emphasis to the itsy-bitsy tailends of a bellcurve.
then i wonder how the connection between humanism & art was made, so i
really wonder whether we have a consensus definition of humanism, or
just a meaningless word around which to rotate.
next, i consider trying to label the reagan government either
technologist or humanist ... & give up, but not without a fight.
then, fondling the notion that technologists are more "socially
valuable" than humanists, i try to reconcile the war machine.
and i see the technologists claiming that their work trickles down into
the wanting parts of society ...
 ... but will no one agree that humanities trickle down even less
directly, but more evenly & (i dare ask) more positively?
(think about that; apply trickledown theory across the board & see what
it amounts to, beyond reaganism. what tricklesdown do you like best?)

and finally i realize that, technologist or humanist, most of you
are proud of your opinions but have given them little thought.
you should be ashamed; as elitists, you should be committed to excellence.
the last place i'd want to find the people doing this talking
would be in a position of power.
                                 - steve harley  (yale-comix!harley)

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

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

02-Feb-82  0302	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #95   
Date: 02 Feb 1982 0301-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #95
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 95

Today's Topics:
			 Technology and Humanity 
		     RE: Technologists and Humanists
		    Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 01 Feb 1982 1014-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Technology and Humanity 
To:   space at MIT-MC, pourne at MIT-MC    

	Date: 31 January 1982 03:39-EST
	From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
	Subject: Technologists and Humanists 
	
	If you burned all the art, people would be miserable but alive.
	
	If you burned all the technology, about 75% of the population
	would starve.
	
	Which should we do?
	
	
	(Maybe neither?)

My point was not that one is independant of the other, but that
they are both facets of the same jewel.  If you burned all the art,
would you include well-designed machinery, or elegant computer programs?
If you burned all the technology, would you destroy Moog synthesizers,
or synthetic-fibre paintbrushes?  Art can be functional, as technology
can be artistic.  Is writing a novel on a word-processor an act of
artistry or technology?  --Tom

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

Date: Mon Feb  1 18:49:11 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!npois!houxi!houxe!lime!gdg at Berkeley
Subject: RE: Technologists and Humanists
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Bravo! Excellent observation stated in a few elegant sentences. With only a
few exceptions I can think of (e.g. recent use of computer-generated graphics
and holography as art media per se) artists tend to disparage
technology/technologists while the reverse is not seen nearly as often. Is
this a result of one-way ignorance? I think so; I am often shocked at the
technological illiteracy of many of my artist friends. On the other hand, I
am often impressed by the deep appreciation for art which most of my "tekkie"
friends possess. (By the way, when I say "technological illiteracy" I
don't mean that they never heard of Maxwell's equations; I mean they don't
even have an understanding of what inductive reasoning (i.e. scientific method)
IS!!!)
		- Glenn Golden

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

Date: 2 February 1982 02:42-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station
To: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think it's much easier to build large structures in space than
on the Moon, because you can just float out things via automated
beam-builders and not have to sorry about supporting the equipment
against gravity nor even about the hills and valleys you'd have to
traverse if you built it on the moon. Even if you build it ok, you
have to beam the energy back about ten times the distance (225,000
miles instead of only 25,000 miles) and somehow re-direct it to
a single place on Earth that will receive it. But it's a idea worth studying.
Maybe I'm wrong and it's a good idea. Experts should add up all
the costs and benefits and compare with the geosync and polarsync
proposals and settle the matter by means other than my speculation.

Has anybody seriously studied lunar-based SPS?

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

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

03-Feb-82  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #96   
Date: 03 Feb 1982 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #96
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 96

Today's Topics:
	   Government Funding of Exploration (previous article)
			     Shuttle Progress
		Re: sri-unix.660: ARPANET Withholding Tax?
			  Time Article on Ariane
			    space duplication
			       poking agin
			       post script
			 TECHNOLOGY VS. HUMANISM
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon Feb  1 15:36:32 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ARPAVAX.Onyx.jmrubin at Berkeley
Subject: Government Funding of Exploration (previous article)
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

	As I recall, off hand, the British East India Company and the
Hudson's Bay Company, and the British West India Company were NOT
supported by laissez-faire types.  They supported MERCANTILISM
which was precisely what laissez-faire types were against.

					Joel Rubin

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

Date: Tue Feb  2 07:49:36 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Progress
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

At midnight tonight, the shuttle Columbia will be moved, a day early,
from the Orbiter Processing Facility to the Vehicle Assembly Building.
There, it will be mated with the external tank and SRB assembly.  NASA
officials say that the shuttle should be able to be rolled to pad 39A
by 21 February, leading to a late March launch.

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

Date: Tue Feb  2 09:23:23 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!dukgeri!ccw at Berkeley
Subject: Re: sri-unix.660: ARPANET Withholding Tax?
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

The problem with missing parts of messages appears to originate at ARPAVAX.
Their "news" program is throwing away first lines and, from what I hear,
everybody who can fix it is at the USENIX conference!

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

Date: Tue Feb  2 11:15:13 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!ihnss!karn at Berkeley
Subject: Time Article on Ariane
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

The current issue of Time Magazine (February 8, 1982) has an article on the
European Space Agency's Ariane launcher, along with a picture of the
nighttime liftoff of L04 (the fourth test flight conducted last month).

Arianespace, the private corporation that will handle commercial
launches of the Ariane, is currently asking $25 million per launch.

Phil Karn

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

Date: Tue Feb  2 11:57:01 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!uwvax!jon at Berkeley
Subject: space duplication
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

The easiest way to prevent duplication of articles in net.space
and arpanet's space digest is to do away with net.space!
why have a set-up where we KNOW that articles will come out twice?
why make the digest moderator clean up the mess?
          Jon Mauney (uwvax!jon)

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

Date: Tue Feb  2 12:14:01 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!yale-com!harley at Berkeley
Subject: poking agin
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


for the record, i am an artist (writer & painter, mostly) who supports
himself by programming computers. i know a number of other artists.
i don't know any ARTISTS who disparage technology. i know a few humanists
who disparage technology, but they are in the minority. personally,
i don't disparage technology, but i tend to be very thoughtful, so i
think a lot of technology is not worth having. like food processors 
& neutron bombs. i know a lot of scientists too, & a fair number of them
have a very limited appreciation of art. the scientists/technoligists
i know who do appreciate art tend to be humanists as well, so i think
the comparison of techno-humano is balderdash. there are just people
who are more limited than others. however, they don't bother me as much
as people who are DEPENDENT on technology. 

                                         - me again   (yale-comix!harley)

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

Date: Tue Feb  2 12:27:36 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!yale-com!harley at Berkeley
Subject: post script
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


post script to last message:

i would regard the space program as a very expensive piece of art with
some technological spinoffs.

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

Date: 2 February 1982 23:46-EST
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: TECHNOLOGY VS. HUMANISM
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     A long time ago I forgot what started this discussion.  It doesn't
seem to be related to space issues.  Let's move it to some other mailing list.

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

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

Note that digest #97 only went to a few people, and all its messages are
reproduced in #98.
05-Feb-82  0334	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #98   
Date: 05 Feb 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #98
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 98

Today's Topics:
			      Administrivia
			      dead batteries
		    : This is the space mailing list!
			 Relvancy of discussions
			   New Saturnian Moons
			   Shuttle Moved to VAB
			     Re: poking agin
			 Re: New Saturnian Moons
			     Saturnian moons
		   post script --> Space isn't just art
		     RE: Technologists and Humanists
		    Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station
				   Re:
			    Re: dead batteries
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 4 February 1982  23:39-PST
From: OTA at S1-A
Subject: Administrivia
To: space at mit-mc

I'm afraid that some of you will get most of these message twice.  Please
accept my appologies, I erred in adding a new user yesterday and that
sent the mailer into hysterics.

A couple of comments while I'm about it:

The discussion of details of the distribution of the space digest and its
constituent materials inside the USENET is not germane to this list.  I
will try and work out something with the maintainers of that network.  In
general question, complaints, or suggestings about the mechanics of the
digest should be sent to SPACE-Request@MC or directly to me, not to the
list as a whole.

I generally agree with Bob Amsler's comments later in this digest.  The
discussions of Humanism vs. Technologism is getting rather far afield.
Perhaps we can stop flogging that particular horse, and get on with issues
such as why the shuttles fuel cell clogged up (asked and answered in this
issue, how's that for service?).

	Ted Anderson

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

Date: Wednesday, 3 February 1982  08:00-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: dead batteries
To: space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	Has anyone read a clear explaination of what went wrong with
Columbia's "b" fuel cell?

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

Date:  3 Feb 1982 1044-PST
From: Bob Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: : This is the space mailing list!
To: space at MIT-MC

Why is the space mailing list discussing the philosophical aspects
of technology vs. humanities?

Why is the space mailing list dealing with anti-space dialogues?

As I understood this list's function it was to serve as a news medium
for distribution of information about the space program and scientific
speculation about possible space research.
Could we return to that purpose...

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

Date:  3 Feb 1982 1304-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Relvancy of discussions
To: space at MIT-MC

	Concerning the relevance of the humanist vs. technologist debate
of recent  digests, I  see no  reason why  they should  NOT be  in  this
digest. Assuming that the material  in each disgest accurately  reflects
the amount of contributions, then everyone's missive is making it out on
the list anyway, so what's to complain about?

        Offhand, I don't see  where the humanist/technologist  dichomety
is MORE appropriately discussed than concerning space, that field  being
a major  area  of  technological  endeavor  with  possibly  the  largest
potential impact upon humanity.  In  order to make sense of  technology,
the human factors must  be added to the  equation. Ignoring one for  the
other is perhaps expedient but ill-fated. Although I agree with JP  that
if forced to choose between 'art' and 'technology', 'art' would, for me,
lose, though it would be painful to actually do such a deed.

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

Date: Tue Feb  2 21:47:05 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: New Saturnian Moons
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Scientists, analyzing data from Voyager II, say that information has
increased the number of known moons of Saturn to 21 to 23.  Two new
satellites were confirmed, with two others listed as ``possibles,''
since they had only one sighting each and are awaiting confirmation
as satellites.  The moons range from 6 to 12 miles in diameter and
have orbits as far as 292,000 miles from the ringed planet.  Before
Voyager I passed Saturn in 1979, only 10 moons were known to exist.

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

Date: Wed Feb  3 07:31:11 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Moved to VAB
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


The shuttle Columbia was successfully moved to the Vehicle Assembly
Building today, one day EARLY.  There, it will be put into a vertical
position and the external tank and SRB's will be attached.  This
completed (hopefully by Friday), the shuttle will undergo tests
simulating during-mission conditions, leading to a hopefull rollout
by 21 February and a launch the week of 22 March.

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

Date: Wed Feb  3 09:50:33 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!vax135!harpo!cbosg!teklabs!tekmdp!azure!johnk at
       Berkeley
Subject: Re: poking agin
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I think we should have a new newsgroup net.space.philosophy and let those
individuals that want to fight it out regarding technology vs humanism
do it somewhere besides net.space. It seems net.space was intended to
provide updates on recent developments in space exploration. Come on, guys,
give us a break.

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

Date: Wed Feb  3 16:05:16 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley
Subject: Re: New Saturnian Moons
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I am confused.  Does anyone know the definition used to state that some
body orbiting a planet is a *moon*?  Especially with Saturn and the rings,
there must be a lot of orbiting debris.  When does debris in orbit get
dignified with the label *moon*?

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

Date:  3 Feb 1982 at 2153-PST
From: Andrew Knutsen <knutsen@SRI-UNIX>
To: space at MC
Subject: Saturnian moons
Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX

	Here is another interesting thing about the moons, extracted
from the news story:
--------
        One of the confirmed little moons and one of the ''possible''
    satellites are companions of the larger moon, Tethys, and appear to
    move in what Synnott referred to as ''horseshoe'' orbits.
        Satellites in horseshoe orbits trade orbits as they approach each
    other, the NASA spokesman said.
--------
	From the name "horseshoe", I assume the moons actually loop
around each other and change direction, rather than deflecting
slightly and following the path the other moon approached in.
This might be interesting to watch, especially if one were (firmly)
attached to one of the moons.
	However my intuition rebels against the idea. Is there really
enough gravitational attraction to do this? Would such an arrangement
be stable? What would the tides be like?

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

Date: 4 February 1982 03:08-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: post script --> Space isn't just art
To: ucbvax!decvax!yale-com!harley at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The Voyager pictures are indeed a work of art, but not very expensive,
I've heard it's about one six-pack of beer per person of this country.
Most works of art are much more expensive for the number of people
who can see them and appreciate them. (All we need to do is distribute
prints of the best of the Voyager pictures to each and every citizen,
and we'll truly have the cheapest masterpiece of art ever produced.)

The rest of the space program is science, not art, mostly. We get
vast amounts of crucial information that is a first step towards
engineering to actually make use of space for our benefit. Science
always comes first, then a lot of hard engineering, then profit.
Thus I don't agree with your claim that the space program is just
an expensive work of art with spinoff. It's a medium-priced science
project with some artistic spinoff and also some random-product spinoff.

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

Date: 4 February 1982 05:32-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
To: JMC at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	The whole space community, with, I thnk, particular
credit to L-5 Society, deserves a couplee attaboys.  I'll take a
bit of the plaudits because of the Citizens Council activity
(and Danny Graham's efforts, plus Newt Gingrich's were somewhat
influenced and aided by the Council.)  Anyway--it is not what we
wanted, but it is less than we feared.
	We could get into next year's state of the union if we
worked it right; it means more coordinated work...

    Date: 03 Feb 1982 2335-PST
    From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>

    I think you deserve considerable credit for this result.

    a013  2242  03 Feb 82
    PM-Space Budget,450
    Reagan OKs Planet Program Money
    By HOWARD BENEDICT
    AP Aerospace Writer
        WASHINGTON (AP) - Overriding his fiscal advisers, President Reagan
    is proposing in his new budget that much of the U.S. planetary
    exploration program be kept alive.
        Just three months ago, the Office of Management and Budget
    recommended killing most deep space exploration projects in its drive
    to cut federal spending.
        The effort met strong opposition from scientific organizations and
    congressmen on key space committees who took their case to the White
    House.
        As a result, Reagan has put money for several deep-space projects in
    his fiscal 1983 budget. Included is $92.6 million to continue
    development of the Jupiter-orbiting Galileo satellite; $21 million to
    move ahead with several European nations on a joint sun-probe
    mission; and money to maintain the deep space tracking network and to
    allow the Voyager 2 spacecraft to travel on to Uranus and Neptune.
        If OMB had succeeded in dropping the planetary programs, it would
    have meant the loss of about 1,200 jobs at NASA's Jet Propulsion
    Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., which manages the deep-space efforts.
        The president is to submit his full 1983 budget to Congress on
    Monday. The Associated Press on Wednesday obtained an advance copy of
    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration section.
        Reagan proposes total NASA spending of $6.6 billion. Factoring in
    inflation, that's about equal to 1982's $5.98 billion.
        A major share of the 1983 budget, $1.7 billion, is for the manned
    space shuttle, which is to complete its test program with flights in
    March and July and to start cargo-carrying operational missions in
    November. A second shuttle, the Challenger, is to join the Columbia at
    Cape Canaveral, Fla., in June.
        Another $1.7 billion is earmarked for space flight operations,
    mainly for the shuttle.
        Reagan is a strong supporter of the reusable spaceship, primarily
    because of its potential military applications.
        NASA didn't get all it wanted in deep space. It lost a Venus orbiter
    and a probe to Halley's comet. Other projects were scaled down or
    stretched out. But, considering the bleak outlook a couple months ago,
    it came out pretty well.
        The proposed budget also includes $137.5 million, $61.7 million and
    $34.5 million, respectively, for continued development of three major
    orbiting satellites: a space telescope, an advanced Landsat Earth
    Resources payload and a gamma ray observatory; $100 million for
    construction of facilities; and $1.17 billion for research and program
    management.
        Aeronautical research dipped slightly, from $233 million in 1982, to
    $232 million. Heaviest cuts were in technology for transport aircraft
    and advanced propulsion.
        The budget projects total NASA employment of 21,219 by the Sept. 30,
    1983, the end of fiscal 1983. This would be a drop of more than 400
    from the projected 1982 figure of 21,652.
        
    ap-ny-02-04 0137EST
    ***************

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

Date: 4 February 1982 05:54-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: RE: Technologists and Humanists
To: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!npois!houxi!houxe!lime!gdg at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

In the history of the republic there has never ben a
legislature--state or federal--not having a majority of lawyers.
Whether lawyers are "humanists" or not, they certainly are not
technologists or scientists.
	In our history there has never been a legislature having
more than a few technologists or scientists in it.
	The laws are hideously complex; this may or may not have
smething to do with the lawyers who have made them.  Would a
legislature of engineers have done worse?
	For most of our history we have in fact been governed by
"humanists" to the extent that we have been governed by
intellectuals at all.  Certainly the lawyers have always
controlled the output of technologists; while until very
recently our academic institutions were run by "humanists." We
have a system which seems often enough to have damned near
killed the lot of us.  Is this an interesting observation?
	Perhaps it is time to drop the whole matter.

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

Date: 4 February 1982 05:57-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70

David Criswell has looked at lunar power stations.  They will be
discussed at the l-5 sponsored space citizen convention in LA
April 4-6 (if you don't know about this and want to, ask me).
Criswell is, of course, a lunar nut; but a rather sound one, and
he can make a pretty good case for "go to the moon with shuttles
first; THEN worry about SPS, whether lunar or orbital; either
way you gotta build out of SOMETHING and lunar materials are
cheapest..."
	The L-5 sponsored citizens convention will also feature
architects and engineers beginning serious design of a luar
colony.
JEP

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

Date: Thu Feb  4 16:21:15 1982
To: Space@MIT-MC
From: ARPAVAX.arnold@Berkeley
Subject: Re:
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

I think you might also give some credit to Jerry Brown.  Some inside
information indicates that one reason Reagan + advisors decided not
to slash hard at NASA programs was to avoid handing Jerry obvious and
wonderful targets for his campaign.  Not that I want to dengrate those
who worked hard on this.  But remember that Reagan doesn't make all
of his decisions on a basis of philosophy.
		Ken
P.S.  Neither does any other politician, of course.

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

Date: Thu Feb  4 21:52:44 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: dead batteries
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

Yes, it seems that a little contamination (some aluminum compound)
clogged up one of its aspirators.  These are the little holes that
drain the cell of water.  Subsequently, the cell flooded and that's
what caused it to be finally shut down.

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

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

06-Feb-82  0302	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #99   
Date: 06 Feb 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #99
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 99

Today's Topics:
		      half-time power from the moon
			       NASA budget
			    "horseshoe" orbits
			    LA l-5 convention
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Friday, 5 February 1982  08:44-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: half-time power from the moon
To: space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	Don't lunar power stations cease to function two weeks every
month? 

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

Date:  5 Feb 1982 1036-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: NASA budget
To: space at MIT-MC


    Heaviest cuts were in technology for transport aircraft and advanced
    propulsion.

Does this include scramjets?  In my opinion developing the technology for
single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicles is a lot more important than
planetary exploration.

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

Date:  5 Feb 1982 1310-CST
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: "horseshoe" orbits
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: knutsen at SRI-UNIX

I'm sure there will be plenty of other replies on this, but...

The word "horseshoe" may be unfortunate.  But imagine TWO of them,
ends-to-ends, one slightly larger than the other.  That's what is
meant.  The satellites do not reverse their course; they merely
exchange orbits.  As the lower one catches up with the higher one,
their mutual gravitational attraction acts to accelerate the former
and retard the latter; the lower one thus moves into a higher orbit,
and the higher one, into a lower orbit.  They continue on their
merry ways until the next encounter/dance.

Actually, it surely takes several revolutions til the next meeting,
so the horseshoe analogy does not exactly fit.  But it's poetic,
isn't it?

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

Date: 6 February 1982 04:05-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: LA l-5 convention
To: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, WEDEKIND.ES at MIT-MC, REM at MIT-MC,
    RMS at MIT-MC, PDL at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-MC

The L-5 Convention is at the Hyatt International (LA AIRPORT
HYATT) over the weekend of 2-4 April.  Usual convention costs
(around $30 at the door; "professional membership" including
banquet, some papers, and a reception is about $75).
	Guests of Honor: Robert A. Heinlein
			Fred Haise (Grumman VP, Commander of
Apollo 13)

	Keynote Speaker: Dr. Hans Mark, Deputy Adminnistratior
NASA, former Secretary of the Air Force.  Featured Guest:
Honorable Newt Gingrich, Representative from Georgia, CoChair of
the Congressonal Space Caucus.  Arthur Kantrowitz, Gary Hudson
(private rocket constructor) Harry Stine, George Merrick and
Chuck Gould of Rockwell, General Dan Graham, and a buncha other
notables.
	Convention cochaired by Je Pournelle and Milton Stevens
(Stevens, a former Worldcon SF type, does most of the work).
	Purpose is to get enthusiasts and professionals
together, adn to generate a strategy for the advancement of the
space program.
	Please feel free to pass this messag on to whomever you like.

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

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

07-Feb-82  0302	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #100       
Date: 07 Feb 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #100    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:
			     Horseshoe Orbits
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  6 February 1982 19:30 est
From:  Tavares.WFSO at MIT-Multics
Subject:  Horseshoe Orbits
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 6 February 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson

All you space whizzes, don't get on me, I know I'm ignorant.  But this
is the second time I've heard horseshoe orbits explained in this
fashion.  What puzzles me is the explanation that "the lower one is
attracted by the higher one ahead of it, making it go faster and
therefore into a higher orbit."  As was mentioned several times during
the Skylab "re-entry," higher orbits are SLOWER, not faster.  If the
moon thus accelareted doesn't immediately fly into space, it must have
to do with some interaction whereby the other moon, now lower (and
slower) pulls it back.  This sounds weird.  It would be more likely that
the moons are really orbiting each other, and the "horseshoe" effect is
an optical illusion-- a cycloid-like figure, perhaps, traced out solely
because both these moons are orbiting something larger in the meanwhile.
Is this what is actually happening?

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

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

08-Feb-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #101       
Date: 08 Feb 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #101    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 101

Today's Topics:
		      half-time power from the moon
			       NASA budget
			    "horseshoe" orbits
			     Horseshoe Orbits
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 February 1982 06:19-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: half-time power from the moon
To: KING at KESTREL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Not if they are at the poles they don't.
	(that's the answer; the question was, don't lunar power
stations cease to function two weeks of the month?)
	Of course a non-polar lunar colony would indeed need
either a good energy storage system, or a good generation
system; if you put it up in a large whack, say by ORION, then a
small nuclear power plant would probably be the right thing to
have for a colony.

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

Date: 7 February 1982 06:21-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: NASA budget
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

There are other developments; and some private work on Big Dumb
Boosters, and the like.  But Single Stage to Orbit technology is
indeed very important, and somewhat overlooked.  It may,
nowever, get funding directly from DOD.

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

Date: 7 February 1982 06:22-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: "horseshoe" orbits
To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, knutsen at SRI-UNIX

I gather that two objects "in the same orbit" actually share an
orbit that NEITHER of them is actually in?

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

Date: 8 February 1982 03:35-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Horseshoe Orbits
To: Tavares.WFSO at MIT-MULTICS
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

The two satellites are in almost identically the same orbit, thus the
one in the lower/faster/smaller orbit very very slowly overtakes the
other over a period of many orbits. If they were of zero mass, they'd
simply bump into each other as they pass, and be diflected in some
semi-random direction like particles in a sub-atomic accellerator.
But they have enough mass that as they get close to each other they
pull on each other slightly. The one ahead in orbit (the higher/slower
one) is pulled backward, causing it to lose energy and spiral down to
a lower orbit. The one behind in orbit (the lower/faster one) is
pulled forward, causing it to gain energy and spiral up to a higher
orbit. Eventually they are in exactly the same orbit, one behind the
other, and they don't get any closer because the one behind is no
longer traveling faster than the one ahead. But they are still close
together, in fact they are at their closest point now, and they continue
to attract each other. The one ahead continues to lose energy and spiral
into a lower and lower orbit, and the one behind continues to gain energy
and spiral into a higher and higher orbit. The one ahead, being now in
a lower orbit, races ahead, and the behind, being now in a highe orbit,
lags behind. They thus slowly drift apart, the one in front in a lower
oribit and the one behind in a higher orbit, until they are far enough
away to no longer effect each other significantly.

Many many orbits later, their difference in orbits has caused the one
ahead&faster to get nearly a whole orbit ahead of the one behind, and
they start to effect each other but with roles reversed (the one that
was slightly ahead is now almost a full orbit ahead, thus is slightly
behind, and is in the lower/faster orbit on approach; the one that was
slightly behind is now almost a full orbit behind, thus slightly ahead,
and is in the higher/slower orbit on approach).

(I hope this explanation satisfies everybody.)

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

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

09-Feb-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #102       
Date: 09 Feb 1982 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #102    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 102

Today's Topics:
		    Re: sri-unix.707: Horseshoe Orbits
		  RE: dennis' reply to Horseshoe Orbits
		      half-time power  from the moon
			    Politics of Space
			     Scramjet Request
			     horseshoe orbits
			 polar lunar solar power
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun Feb  7 10:51:10 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: hplabs!menlo70!ucbvax!ihnss!cbosg!harpo!chico!duke!phs!dennis
       at Berkeley
Subject: Re: sri-unix.707: Horseshoe Orbits
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Nope -- it's not ignorance, it's just a point of view problem.  Higher
orbits are slower only in terms of angular velocity (speed relative to
the surface).  In linear velocity (yeah, orbits are ellipses, but
that's the idea) higher orbits are faster.  You need to accelerate from
a low orbit to achieve a higher one.  The ground speed is slower
because the circumference grows quickly wrt speed and it has more
distance to cover than it has extra speed to do it with.

Thus, the two moons exchange kinetic energy (orbital speed) via
gravitational attraction, and they BOTH (mutual and opposite) change
orbits.  The higher moon (the one caught up on) is decelerated and the
lower moon is accelerated, causing them to exchange orbits.  This will
collapse eventually (tidal forces ALWAYS eat some of that kinetic
energy), and either they will collide or just take up the same orbit;
I suspect collision.

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

Date: Mon Feb  8 00:24:53 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: hplabs!menlo70!ucbvax!ihnss!houxi!houxg!lime!gdg at Berkeley
Subject: RE: dennis' reply to Horseshoe Orbits
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


speaking, angular velocity is the rate at which an orbiting body subtends
a given angle relative to the orbital *focus* (CG), which, in the case of
relatively light moons orbiting relatively round, heavy planets, can be
considered to be the center of the planet. Simply put, radians/second. *It has
nothing to do with speed relative to the surface.* For example, a
geosynchronous satellite has no motion relative to the Earth's surface, yet
its angular velocity is considerable. If the earth suddenly stopped rotating,
the satellite's angular velocity would remain the same (360 degrees/day), and
it would remain in orbit at the original altitude. (Of course it would no
longer be geosync either.) We just tend to think of orbital speeds as relative
to the planet surface, but that is *apparent* angular velocity. Luckily for
us, that's all it is. If the earth had no angular velocity (spin) of its own we
wouldn't be able to have geosync satellites at all because no matter what orbit
we put them in they'd always have some velocity relative to the surface.

				- Glenn Golden

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

Date: Monday, 8 February 1982  08:07-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
To: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL
Subject: half-time power  from the moon

	In that case,  unless the moon's  equator happens to  coincide
almost exactly with the ecliptic (does it?) the power station will  be
out of service for six months out  of the year.  (There is NO  pointof
the Earth's surface that has continuous sunlight.)
	In addition, note that the sun's angle changes.  If the moon's
equator IS aimed at the sun, then only half of the sun is visible from
the poles,  and you  would need  a tall  tower (built  againstgravity,
don't forget) and a rotator to take advantage of the continuous  power
available.

					Dick

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

Date: 8 Feb 1982 0926-PST
Sender: WARD at USC-ISIF
Subject: Politics of Space
From: Craig E. Ward <Ward at USC-ISIF>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
Cc: Ward at USC-ISIF
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF] 8-Feb-82 09:26:10.WARD>

Yesterday I got around to reading my copy of "The Planetary
Report" and I found a reprint of an article by James Van Allen.
I contend that this article illustrates one of the problems we
have in getting the space program funded, namely, that many of
the big names of the scientific community are politically naive
and give the political opponents of science weapons to use
against us.

Very quickly, the article contends that we can not complain about
the level of funding of the space program (6 billion NASA and 3
billion DoD), that if several scientific probes have been
cancelled, we must remember that it is because the nation spends
almost all its money on manned space flight.  He hints that he
thinks the space shuttle is going to be a "financial monstrosity"
being 20-50 years ahead of its time.

I disagree on several of his points.  The NASA budget is not by
any reasonable accounting adequate, nor is the general level of
scientific funding.  For something so vitally important to the
country to receive such a small piece of the pie is a disgrace.
I also contend that the manned space program has more than
justified itself by its returns in science and technology.  And
finally, to illustrate my point, to assume that money taken from
the manned program will go to the unmanned demonstrates great
political naivity.

Van Allen's arguments sound rather similar to those made by
people like Senator Proxmire (a real tail-gunner if there ever
was one).  I think that Proxmire's statements have shown that he
lacks an understanding of the scientific method and such
statements as those of Van Allen allow him to claim allies in the
scientific world (See, even their own agree with me).  The battle
over funding must be fought in the political arena and we must
learn how to fight there if we are going to get anywhere.

I do not want to give the impression that I think either Dr. Van
Allen or Senator Proxmire are stupid or evil.  I would very
likely like both if I were to meet them.  I would, however, like
to caution people in positions like that of Dr. Van Allen to be
careful of what they say and to whom they say it.  The budget you
save may be your own.

/Craig

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

Date:  8 Feb 1982 1313-CST
From: John Otken <CC.Otken at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Scramjet Request
To: Space at MIT-MC

Could anyone supply some references to SStO technology?
-------

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

Date: 8 Feb 1982 06:47:05-PST
From: menlo70!sytek!intelqa!murray at Berkeley

HOORAY!!!!!! Finally some REAL space news! Please keep it up.

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

Date: Mon Feb  8 10:10:52 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!phs!dennis at Berkeley
Subject: horseshoe orbits
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Nuts.  I fell into the point-of-view trap myself.

Anyway, correcting for that, my remarks still apply, unless
somebody who has taken more than one astrophysics course
can correct me.

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

Date: Mon Feb  8 11:01:44 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!cjp at Berkeley
Subject: polar lunar solar power
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I can see problems with moon-based solar power stations even at the
poles.  If you could get continuous power there, I could maybe see
beaming it to earth from such a close tangent to the lunar surface.
The moon's orbit is the problem.  It is not quite in the same plane
as the earth's orbit around the sun.  So, the polar regions will
cycle in and out of sunlight on a yearly basis.
Even when the sun lights the pole, it is low on the lunar horizon.
This means that the collectors would have to be huge and/or highly
tilted, relative to the amount of power you'd get.  And you would still
have to build a power station at both poles to get year-round power.

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

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

10-Feb-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #103       
Date: 10 Feb 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #103    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:
		    Re: half-time power from the moon
		 possible private funding for Shuttle #5
		     Re: Horseshoe (and other) orbits
		  Re: Re: sri-unix.707: Horseshoe Orbits
			      orbital speed
			Orbital mechanix, please!
		    Re: sri-unix.707: Horseshoe Orbits
			    Re: Mooning Around
			    Mooning Around...
			      Mooning Around
			    Politics of Space
			 polar lunar solar power
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon Feb  8 13:48:55 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley
Subject: Re: half-time power from the moon
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


	I would expect that lunar power stations would go to low output
every two weeks (have to use earthshine only?).

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

Date: 9 Feb 1982 0959-EST
From: MPH at MIT-XX
Subject: possible private funding for Shuttle #5
To: space at mc

The February 12 issue of Science magazine states that the Space
Transportation Company, a group of investment bankers and venture
capitalists, is considering funding the fifth Shuttle.  STC is considering
raising one billion dollars privately, and then turning the shuttle over to
NASA (or whomever is operating shuttles in 1986), in return for which STC
would become the sole ticketing and marketing agent for all commercial and
foreign users of the STS.
-------

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

From: MINSKY@MIT-AI
Date: 02/09/82 12:20:37

MINSKY@MIT-AI 02/09/82 12:20:37
To: space at MIT-MC
The lunar-polar 24 houd power station would be built on a mountain-top.
It is a question of fact: is there a peak with continuous sunlight,
through entire year?  If not, how high a tower would it need?

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

Date: 9 Feb 1982 10:43 PST
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Horseshoe (and other) orbits
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 07 Feb 1982 0302-PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Ciccarelli @ PARC-MAXC

About "horseshoe" orbits, actually about orbits in general...  The higher orbit is
not faster (higher *velocity*) but of higher *energy*.  As the trailing moon
(lower, faster, less energy) catches the leading moon (higher, slower, more
energy) it takes some of the leading moon's energy, swapping orbits.  It's
counterintuitive -- higher energy does NOT imply higher orbital velocity.  I dug
up the formulas for your reference...

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

The formula for orbital velocity (circular orbit approximation) is:

V = V0 * SQRT( Earth radius / Orbit radius),  where

V0 = 7.86 KM/SEC ("Circular velocity at Earth's surface),
Earth radius = 6400 KM (approx.), and
SQRT is the Square-root operation (of course)

You can check the formula for the three familiar orbit radii; calculate the
velocity using the formula, then see that this velocity gives the right orbital
period [distance = 2 * PI * Orbit radius; divide by velocity to get the period].

1) near-earth: Orbit radius = Earth radius ==> V = V0 [gives 90 min. period]
2) geosynchronous: Orbit radius = 40,000 KM (approx.) [gives 24-hr period]
3) lunar: Orbit radius = 400,000 KM (approx.)  [gives 28-day period]

This also gives the expected result of  V=0 at very great distances.

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

The formula for orbit energy is:

Total Energy = - (G * M1 * M2 / 2 * Orbit Radius), where

G = Newton's gravitational constant, and
M1, M2 = masses (i.e. Earth and satellite)
Note that:

1) the total energy is negative (the physical interpretation is that the
orbit is "bound", i.e. the satellite has less energy than that required to
escape).

2) Orbit radius appears in the denominator again, thus the total energy
will become greater (still negative, but closer to zero) as orbit radius
increases.  At very great distance, the energy goes to zero (as expected).

[ Source: "Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics", by Smith and Jacobs ]

/John

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

Date: 9 Feb 1982 11:17 PST
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Re: sri-unix.707: Horseshoe Orbits
In-reply-to: ETC!dennis's message of Sun Feb  7 10:51:10 1982
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

Nice try on the orbital explanation, but it's unfortunately not right
(even ignoring the ground speed business).  Both linear velocity and
angular velocity increase for satellites closer to the body they are
orbiting.  Take the moon (radius 238,000 miles, period 27+ days => 2200
mph, 0.04 rev/day) versus a low earth orbit satellite (radius 4000 miles,
period 1.5 hrs => 17,000 mph, 16 rev/day).  The angular velocity decreases
with the 1.5 power of distance, the linear velocity decreases with the 0.5
power (square root) of distance.

The actual explanation of why adding speed moves a satellite away from the
body is this: With additional speed, the satellite tends to go in more of
a straight line (has less time to fall toward the parent body), and
increases its orbital distance.  While increasing its distance, it is
slowed by gravitation.  It reaches equilibrium at a greater distance and a
slower orbital speed than it originally had.

This can be viewed another (equivalent) way: an orbiting body, given extra
speed, has too much kinetic energy for that orbit, so it exchanges some of
its kinetic energy for potential energy.  The equilibrium is reached when
the extra speed we gave it and some of its original speed are exchanged,
ending up quite a bit higher and moving a little slower than originally.

Point of view is important in understanding the name "horseshoe".  Imagine
two horseshoes, of slightly different size, mouth to mouth, on a plate.
The plate spins quickly.  As seen by a viewer on the plate, the satellite
on the inner orbit is moving slowly counterclockwise along the smaller
horseshoe, while the outer one is moving slowly clockwise on the larger
horseshoe.  The spinning of the plate represents the average rate of
revolution of the two satellites, and so the viewer on the plate sees only
the DIFFERENCE between a satellite's orbital speed and the average
(plate's) speed.  At encounter, we switch the sizes of the horseshoes, and
the satellites (still seen from our spinning point of reference) seem to
each reverse direction and traverse their (now slightly larger or smaller)
respective horseshoes in the opposite directions.

/Don Lynn

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

Date: 9 Feb 1982 21:51:13-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: orbital speed

   I suppose a lot of people will wake up on this one, but I might as
well put in my nickel's worth. High orbits \are/ slower in linear
velocity than low orbits. Local example (remember, earth orbits are
measured from the surface, so add ca. 3900 miles to these figures):
   A satellite at LEO is ca. 150 miles up and has ca. 90-minute orbit;
orbital velocity ca. 140 miles per minute.
   A satellite at GEO is ca. 22,300 miles up and has (by definition) a
24-hour orbit; orbital velocity  ca. 57 miles per minute.
   The moon is around .25e6 miles up, orbits in 28+ days; orbital velocity
ca. 19 miles per minute.
 Need more data? Start with Pluto being at 39 AU (earth-orbit radii) with
a period of 200+ years.
   All of these figures are out of my head, but date from a grade-school
infatuation with space and so are tolerably accurate. More precise figures
are welcome.
   What happens when you add energy to an orbiting body is not that simple;
the only way the body can maintain a stable orbit is by turning all that
energy (and some of its own kinetic) into potential energy, i.e. take a
higher orbit. What the shuttle is doing when it turns around and blasts in
the direction it was going is throwing away enough KE that it can't keep
a stable orbit above the Earth's surface; if you got rid of the atmosphere
and dug a trench it could drop into a stable orbit below the net surface.
C'mon, guys, even Brunner got this right (and used it to make an effective
point in THE SHOCKWAVE RIDER). 

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

Date:  9 February 1982 2232-EST (Tuesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Orbital mechanix, please!
Message-Id: <09Feb82 223233 DS30@CMU-10A>

In fact, higher orbits are slower any way you want to measure.  But
due to the gravity well, they are still at a higher energy level.

Consider:

	f = GMm/r^2

where f is the force exerted between two bodies, G is the gravitational
constant, M is the mass of the primary, m the mass of the satellite,
and r the radius between centers.  Assume M >> m.

For a circular orbit, we use

	f = ma		(force, mass, acceleration)
	a = rw^2	(acceleration, radius, angular velocity)
	w = v/r		(angular velocity, tangential velocity, radius)

Equating gravitational force on the satellite with the force required to
keep it in circular orbit,

	GMm/r^2  =  mrw^2  =  mv^2/r

which produces

	w = sqrt( GM/r^3 )
	v = sqrt( GM/r )

which clearly shows angular and tangential velocity dropping as radius
rises.

Low earth satellites travel at nearly 18,000 mph;  geosynchronous
satellites travel at around 6,000 mph;  the moon travels at around
2,000 mph with respect to earth's center.

Consider the task of moving a satellite from LEO to GEO.  (I'll
pull a few numbers out of my hat because I'm lazy, but the exact
numbers aren't the point.)  Starting at 18,000 mph at 150 miles
up, you burn the rockets to accelerate it to 22000 mph.  With
more than circular velocity, the satellite climbs, trading speed
for altitude, until it reaches apogee at geosynchronous height
(around 23,000 miles) with 2000 mph.  Since circular velocity
there is 6000 mph, the satellite will drop back.  It falls until
it reaches 22000 mph at its next perigee, 150 miles up.  At next
apogee (23,000 miles, 2,000 mph), you burn the engines again to
raise the speed to 6,000 mph.  This raises the perigee to put the
satellite into synchronous orbit.  The satellite has gone from
a 18,000 mph circular orbit to a 6,000 mph one purely by firing
its rockets to increase speed.

		- David Smith

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

Date: 10 February 1982 01:27-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: sri-unix.707: Horseshoe Orbits
To: HPLABS!MENLO70!UCBVAX!IHNSS!CBOSG!HARPO!CHICO!DUKE!PHS!DENNIS at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

You're mistaken (wrong).
Under inverse-square law, such as gravity, higher orbits actually
travel slower, not faster! If energy is added to a satellite, it rises
into a higher orbit, but more knetic energy is converted into potential
energy than was applied to make it rise to the new orbit and it has
less knetic energy (but much more potential energy) than when it was lower.
Earth-based common sense, if add energy an object travels faster, doesn't
apply in orbital mechanics; add energy and the object ends up in a new
slower orbit. Here's an example if you don't believe me. The moon is
about 225,000 miles from Earth, while geosynchronous satellites are
about  25,000 miles from Earth. Thus the moon has to travel about 10
times as far to get around, but takes about 29 times as long to do it
because it is traveling only about a third as fast in linear velocity.

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

Date: Tue Feb  9 23:02:53 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Mooning Around
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Rick suggests that a geosynch sps would be in shadow half the time.
where do you get this from?  If in shadow at all, it would
only be for a limited time due to bad design.
also, projecting to a station in lunar 'geo'synch orbit is a little silly,
if you think about what the distance of this orbit is.
(Hint: name an object that stays fixed in the lunar sky)

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

Date: Wed Feb 10 00:26:45 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: Mooning Around...
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


	Oops, Brad's right.  I goofed.  The moon does rotate with respect to the
sun, but unfortunately the postion of a satellite that could take advantage of
that would be in the L5 position - rather further away than practicable.  
	However, I'm not so sanguine about solving the problem of half time 
shadow by better design.  The angular diameter of the Earth as seen by an
35,000 KM above the equator position is quite enough - comfortably enough -
to blot out the Sun.  Remember, the Moon is large enough to cover the Sun,
and it's 400,000 KM away.  Admittedly, the Earth wouldn't block the sun for
12 hours out of every day - six is actually more near correct. A solution would
be to put two SPS in high earth orbit, but this involves taking up not one but
two geostationary slots, which are pretty valuable.  There are only 90 all told,
since there has to be a 4 degree separation between any two satellites due to
possible interference.  Further, a quick glance at a globe will convince
the military that one of the SPSs will be over hostile territory permanently.
                                                     Rick.

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

Date: Tue Feb  9 20:35:00 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: Mooning Around
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


	The Lunar SPS would, of course, deliver power only for half the time.
Of course, this could be said about a geostationary SPS, since it would be
in the shadow of the earth for 12 hours out of 24.
	The Lunar SPS proposal has some merits, though :
1) We could keep it stable.  Precisely how would we keep a free-floating SPS,
several square kilometers, from tumbling about a planar axis?  And if we could,
precisely how do we stress something like that?  These really are mundane
questions, but do we know how to do these things?
	A lunar SPS, on the other hand, has no such problems.  It's merely
a large, flat plain of collectors.  We transmit from the surface (probably
Mare Crisium) to a sattelite in Geosynch orbit above the moon, which transmits
to a buddy in High Earth Orbit.  The principal advantage is no large,
freestanding structure;
2)	The materials are there, or at least we hope they are.  Siliates are,
for sure.
3)	(A cheap advantage, certainly) There would probably be much more
public support for a Lunar base than for one in High Earth Orbit.  The Moon
has always had an emotional appeal that HEO doesn't share.  The space program,
like all government programs, depend in the long run on their public support;
therefore, the chances are better that we will be able to build the Lunar
SPS, if it's technically feasible;
	Which it might not be.  The power-half-the-time problem can be
solved by putting another SPS over on Farside.  Another, better question,
which I haven't got the foggiest idea about, is how we transmit the power -
even a laser spreads somewhat over 400,000 KM, and the satellites orbiting moon
and the earth, the ends of this game of celestial pitch - and - catch, will
have a velocity difference between them.
	This is further complicated by the 3-sec feedback loop.
	To another question - yes, the Moon does orbit in the plane of
the ecliptic, or near enough as to make no difference.  This fact, plus
the low tug-of-war ratio for the moon (about .46, as against an empirical
minimum of 30.00 for a true satellite, led Asimov to speculate that the
Earth-Moon system is in fact a binary planet system..
                                    Cheers,
                                          Rick.

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

Date: 10 February 1982 04:39-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Politics of Space
To: Ward at USC-ISIF
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

What's really needed is a skilled politician who'll undertake to
become the champion for space; someone to lead what is, after
all, the most fundamental revolution since the evoluton of
lungs.
	At the L-5 Convention (Los Angeles Airport Hyatt, April
2-4 1982) we're going to try to generate some strategy; and we
might even have the politicians to help out.

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

Date: 10 February 1982 04:41-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: polar lunar solar power
To: ucbvax!decvax!duke!cjp at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Those really interested in direct power from the moon ought to
come to the L-5 Convention and hear Criswell on the subject.
Dave Criswell used to have the lunar rocks, and he is a lunar
fanatic.

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

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

11-Feb-82  1512	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #104       
Date: 11 Feb 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #104    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 104

Today's Topics:
		     shadows on power satellites. . .
		     Re: watmath.1678: Mooning Around
	   Solar power satellite not usually eclipsed by earth
	      Lunar SPS (Solar Power Station, not satellite)
			     Shuttle Progress
				Space News
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 1982 11:32:33-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: shadows on power satellites. . .

   It looks like we have a lot of people who weren't here the last time this
went around. . . .
   The Earth's shadow for any low orbit is effectively a cylinder with
r .= 4000 miles (farther out you have to imagine a cone with this as base);
this means that a powersat in GEO is in shadow for (at a
rough average) 4/(26.2 * pi) or around 1/20 of its orbit. There are all sorts
of variations in this (because it should travel in equatorial plane rather
than ecliptic, it might not be shadowed at all during the solstices).

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

Date: Wed Feb 10 09:28:38 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!phs!dennis at Berkeley
Subject: Re: watmath.1678: Mooning Around
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


A synchronous powersat would NOT be in earth's shadow
half the time;  it's much less than that.  The shadow
goes directly away from the sun, not outwards at the terminator.

Planar platforms wouldn't tend to tumble; they would tend to
align the long axis toward the planet;  some sort of stabilizing
thruster would be needed.

A better thing than putting two power stations on the Moon is putting
three at 120 degree intervals.  That way somebody always has a
good angle on the sunlight.

If the moon were exactly in the ecliptic, there would be a lunar
eclipse every full moon.  It's pretty far off, but my books
are far, far away and I can't give the right number.

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

Date: 10 Feb 1982 13:36:12-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley
Subject:  Solar power satellite not usually eclipsed by earth

The difference in orbital plane of the solar power satellites around
the earth and the earth around the sun prevents eclipse all but about
98% of the time (or more, but I can't be sure).

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

Date: 10 Feb 1982 14:19:15-PST
From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg])
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Lunar SPS (Solar Power Station, not satellite)

The antenna size and feedback loop problems both go up only linearly
with increased distance of transmitter.  The moon is ten times as
far as GEO.  Thus the transmitting and recieving antennas must be
sqrt(10) times as big (their PRODUCT must be 10 times as big), and
the earthside reference transmitter must lead the recieving array
by kilometers instead of 100's of meters.

(For those of you who haven't come across the rule-of-thumb for
minimum antenna sizes before, it's:

                d  d  =  l lambda
                 1  2

where d1 and d2 are the antenna sizes, l is the distance between them,
and lambda is the wavelength you want to transmit.)

So, the extra distance of a lunar SPS is a disadvantage, but not a
big one.  As was mentioned before, there are obvious advantages:
the materials are available locally, we don't have to cope with
the unknowns of zero-G engineering.  The day/night problem remains,
though.  One suggested solution was two SPS's on opposite sides
of the moon.  I think you would want three, but either way, this
either requires relay antennas in orbit (in which case, why not
build the SPS there in the first place??!?), or a power transmission
grid on the moon's surface.  Since the grid would have to cover many
thousands of km, it had better be superconducting.

So here's my question: what about superconducting cables on the moon?
Would simply shielding them with a mirror keep them cool enough, or is
refrigeration necessary?
---
Jef

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

Date: Wed Feb 10 20:58:19 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!vax135!harpo!npois!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Progress
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Testing of Columbia inside the VAB has been rescheduled due to
a leak of hydraulic fluid and a problem with the SRB's.  However,
in spite of these, officials now hope to get the shuttle rolled
out to pad 39A on 16 February, a day earlier than the last early
date, and the launch was still scheduled for 22 March.

Workers will repair the leak and replace a ``nozzle actuator,''
which steers the nozzle of the SRB in flight, while astronaut
crews take part in simulated tests of the upcoming mission.
The sims will takes place one day early each, thus saving
(hopefully) a day.  These will start at 1000 EST Thursday.

Roll-out is now scheduled to begin at 0500 EST Tuesday (the
16th), with preparations finished by Sunday or Monday.

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

Date: Wed Feb 10 20:54:40 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!vax135!harpo!npois!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Space News
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


NASA officials today asked Congress to approve money for a
fifth space shuttle, citing that the fleet of four will not
be enough to meet demands of those who want to launch cargo
into Earth orbit.  Last year, NASA signed up 41 customers who
will pay to have their satellites launched with either the
shuttle (upon operational readiness) or expendable boosters,
(to be phased out slowly).  A launch schedule was released,
containing plans for 70 flights up to September, 1987, with
most of them being multi-payload.  These contain (in order
of most to least) communications satellite, DoD cargo (usually
secret), scientific instruments, and the European Spacelab.
NASA plans 24 shuttle launches per year by 1988.

Major General James Abrahamson, head of the shuttle project,
said that when one of the shuttles needs to be taken out of
action, be it for repairs or to fix a major accident, a fifth
would smooth out launch schedule disruptions.

The Columbia is scheduled to launch on its third test flight on
22 March, with STS-4 on 7 July and then it's first operational
flight (with two communications satellites) is to come on 11
November.  Challenger is scheduled to be delivered in June, with
its maiden flight in January, 1983.  Discovery is to be delivered
in September, 1983 with Atlantis to follow in December, 1984.
STS-4 will land at Edwards, in contrast to earlier hopes of
landing on the runway at Cape Canaveral, to gain further descent
and landing data.  On the November, 1982, launch, the first
shuttle spacewalk, utilizing a new jack backpack, may be made.
New, lighter heat-protective tiles will be installed on Discovery,
thus lightening it by 3500 pounds.  Lighter external tanks and
SRB's are also being developed.

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

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

12-Feb-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #105       
Date: 12 Feb 1982 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #105    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 105

Today's Topics:
			      Mooning Around
			 Lunar synchronous sites
			 VP Bush's view on budget
		     Eclipses in geostationary orbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 February 1982 06:33-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Mooning Around
To: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

What makes you think a satellite in GEO is in the Earth's shadow
half the time?? The shadow is only 8000miles in diameter (the umbra
is slightly smaller, tapering to zero at four times lunar distance,
the penumbra is slightly larger, tapering larger at the same rate,
at geosync it's almost all umbra and rather close to 8000 miles in
diameter), while the circumference of the orbit is 25,000 * 2 * PI
which is about 150,000 miles. Thus the satellite spends only 8/150
of its time in Earth-shadow (about 75 minutes a day) on those days
in March and September when the Sun and equator are nearly inline,
less time in shadow when they aren't in line, zero when the sun
is so far north or south of the equator that the far-night point
of the orbit is more than 4000 miles from the center of the shadow.
If major industries are willing to close down for an hour when the
SPS is in shadow one satellite should do fine. If it's over the USA
(actually over South America, with beam aimed at Arizona/NM), this
time should be near local midnight when most industries are quite
willing to shut down anyway.

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

Date: 11 February 1982 08:32-EST
From: Hans P. Moravec <HPM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Lunar synchronous sites
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Lunar synchronous satellites are possible at L4 and L5, which are
stable equilibria.  They are also possible at L1 between the earth and
the moon, 58,000 km from the moon's surface and at L2 on the lunar
farside, 64,500 km from the farside.  These are unstable equilibria
and would require a small amount of station keeping (so is and
does geosynch orbit).  The station keeping can be done away with
if you use a very thin thread that anchors the satellite to the
lunar surface!   This would be a very minimal lunar skyhook, made of a
small amount of a conventional material like fiberglass.  It would
be just strong enough to exert the tiny force needed to keep
the satellite from flying outwards when the satellite is placed
a (relative) gnat's eyebrow farther from the lunar surface than L1 or L2.

ref -  Jerome Pearson, "Anchored Lunar Satellites for Cislunar
	Transportation and Communication"  J. Astronautical Sciences
	ca. October 1977  (presented at the European Conf. on Space
	Settlements and Space Industries, London, 20 Sept. 1977)

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

Date: 11 February 1982 21:02-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  VP Bush's view on budget
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

I got a reply to my postcard to VP Bush about space budget. He seems
to think the shuttle is the primary thing to spend money on now
because it's needed before we can build LEO station. I'll have to explain
to him that we need to start designing LEO station now so we can start
building it soon and have it ready to put up when the shuttle is operational.
[My letter was actually signed, and presumably written, by William D. Eckert,
 Lt.Col USAF, Military assistant/aide to the VP.]
Anybody want me to type the full 3.5 paragraphs of the letter and send it
to SPACE?

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

Date: 11 Feb 1982 18:58:40-PST
From: ihnss!karn at Berkeley
To: ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: Eclipses in geostationary orbit

This is a topic that is well understood in the communications
satellite business.  Solar eclipses for spacecraft in geostationary
orbit occur only during the spring and fall seasons (equinoxes) when
the sun appears to pass behind the earth.  During the summer and
winter seasons (for the Northern hemisphere), the sun appears to
pass above the north and south poles at local midnight,
respectively, and there is no eclipse.

The longest eclipses occur at midnight on the equinoxes, where
they are 72 minutes long.  Eclipse durations on days preceeding and
following equinoxes decrease to zero in about + or - 20 days.

A common practice in communications satellite operations is to place
them to the west of the areas they serve.  This causes eclipses to
occur after midnight in the service area, when the traffic has
fallen to lower levels.

A more serious problem for communications are sun transits, in which
the sun passes behind the satellite.  The radio noise from the sun
blots out the satellite signal.  Of course, this would not be
a problem for the SPS;  the sun would even contribute (very slightly) to
the received microwave energy.

Phil Karn
Bell Labs Indian Hill

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

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

13-Feb-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #106       
Date: 13 Feb 1982 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #106    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 106

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Stability of large platforms
			Lunar polar power station
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 1982 08:38 PST
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Stability of large platforms
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Ciccarelli

Space Digest V2 #104 contained the following, from Dennis at Berkeley:

   "Planar platforms... would tend to align the long axis toward the planet;
    some sort of stabilizing thruster would be needed."

It occurred to me that perhaps the need for thrusters (and fuel) to
maintain alignment might be eliminated if a sizable mass were attached to
the orbiting structure via a long boom.  It seems to me that the mass
would have to be comparable to the mass of the rest of the structure,
perhaps dependent on boom length.  Also that perhaps the boom arrangement
might be unworkable due to compression or turning forces.

If the basic idea is sound, getting the mass is not a big problem -- if
you build the platform (SPS?) out of lunar material, you'll be producing
alot of slag as you refine the ore.

My knowledge of the dynamics of large orbiting objects is limited.  Is
this suggestion workable at all?  Do any of you "orbital mechanics" out
there have comments?

/John Ciccarelli

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

Date: 12 Feb 1982 09:38 PST
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Lunar polar power station
In-reply-to: SPACE Digest V2 #103
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

Numbers for the lunar polar power stations: 
The moon's orbit is inclined about 5 degrees from the ecliptic.  This puts
its "arctic circle" (the polar area that gets seasonal darkness) of radius
nearly 100 miles.  It would take a tower or mountain of about 22000 ft to
get above that, or higher if other mountains obscure the "flat" horizon.
The inclination varies slowly over the years, and I don't recall what the
max is.  If it is 7 degrees, then the mountain has to be 2 times as high,
which is getting unreasonable.  Implications on power station design:
Unless we find a nearly adequate mountain in the right place, it is
probably easier to build two or more solar power stations roughly
equatorially than a polar one.

/Don Lynn

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

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

14-Feb-82  0302	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #107       
Date: 14 Feb 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #107    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:
			Lunar colony and SPS plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 February 1982 02:18-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Lunar colony and SPS plan
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Because polar SPS gets good sun angle none of the time at all, whereas
equatorial SPS gets it about a third of the time, I think we should
dismiss polar SPS and get on with more concrete plans for equatorial SPS.
(With low sun angle you can't just lie your collectors side by side
on the sort-of-flat surface, perhaps tilting a bit if they are on
a slope such as craters have but basically lying flat; you have to prop
them up to get a decent sun angle, you have to rotate them as the sun
moves thru the sky, and you have to space them far enough apart that
their shadows don't cast on each other; with all the space between
them, you have to run longer cables to connect them and maintenance and
installation requires longer commute trips.)

We probably need a polar colony to mine Hydrogen from water we suspect
is there, but first we gotta be sure the water is there (we need
funds for a survey mission asap, lunar polar orbiter of course). For power,
we can't use SPS grid, but if the different pieces of equipment are
far enough apart we might have a small solar-array on each one.
Alternately we could have a small fission nuclear reactor or a
large radioactive-decay heat source, or a small heat source on each
piece of equipment. Making the polar station energy-self-sufficient
will be a big enough problem, exporting energy is out of the question.

Our major mining investment should be at the equator where we can
get lots of sunlight at a good angle about a third of the time,
and thus run a large mining project supported on abundant solar energy.
We can produce oxygen, silicon, aluminum, titanium, etc. out of
equatorial moondirt and moonrocks. Initially we can run it only
during good sun angles. When we want to run it 4 weeks a month
instead only 1.5 or 2, we can build batteries out of oxygen and
some convenient cation. For example, we can separate aluminum
from oxygen, then at night burn them against one another to make electricity,
an aluminum/oxygen rechargable battery. We can do refining during
day, stockpiling pure aluminum and oxygen, and at night we can
burn a small amount of it to maintain operations such as
communications, life-support, and maybe even tossing payloads into
space although that takes a lot of energy and might be best done
only in daylight.

Much later we can feed surplus energy via laser or microwave into
a grid that feeds to Earth or other stations, if it's feasible.
Much later we can establish a station on farside, and relay points
at L1 and L4 or L5, and maybe other stations at quarter points
along equator, if it's feasible. But that's far into the next century.

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

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

18-Feb-82  0315	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #108       
Date: 18 Feb 1982 0314-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #108    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 108

Today's Topics:
		      Twisting of orbital platforms
			Lunar colony and SPS plan
		      Long article on isolation    
			     life from comets
		       Hauling cargo into orbit    
			    How 'bout a RING!
				Isolation
			 Delivering the goods... 
				 Re-Ring
		     More on upcoming L-5 conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: CARLF@MIT-AI
Date: 02/14/82 16:46:35
Subject: Twisting of orbital platforms

CARLF@MIT-AI 02/14/82 16:46:35 Re: Twisting of orbital platforms
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
	The idea of putting a weight out on a long boom
to stabilize a thing in orbit is correct. Fortunately,
it is not neccesary to have the counterweight be of comparable
mass to the thing you want to stabilize. What is neccesary 
is that it have a greater moment of inertia about the center of
gravity of the aggregate object. Thus the weight can be arbitrarily
small if placed far enough away. Indeed, a long thin rope 
might be the ideal thing to use as a counterweight.


				-- Carl

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

Date: 15 February 1982 03:59-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Lunar colony and SPS plan
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The L-5 Society, using member talent including Dr. David
Criswell and other lunar experts, plus SUNSAT people, plus some
architects, plus human fctors types, will begin a "Project
Deadalus"-like design of a Lunar colony as part of the L-5 Space
Citizens conference at teh Hyatt Los Angeles Airport over weeken
of 2-4 April.
	We hope to get a practical and technically defensible
Lunar colony design we can do real cost analyses on.  Once we
have a design we can try to sell it; but unti you have a horse,
you have no horse race...

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

Date: 16 February 1982 03:48-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Long article on isolation    
To: TAW at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	1. Although Antarctic experience has many points of
similarity to space colonizatin, and can profitably be studied,
there ARE differences.
	1.1 - A COLONY is not going to be so concerned with
"life back home."  Colonists are there to stay.
	1.2 Colonies are more likely tohave a nearly equal ratio
of sexes.
	1.3 Space colonies (and bases for that matter) wil have
excellent communications; not just radio, but access to
commercial tv, telephone lines, etc.  They will be able to get
the latest TV shows and such like.
	1.4 Colonists always have something to do: expanding the
base, digging new tunnels (on the Moon) etc.
	2. Space is not so actively hostile as Anarctica.
Hostile, certainly, in the sense that it is passively hostile
and you need special equipment to survive outside the domes; but
it doesn't come after you malevolently, which is the impression
many get of the big antarctic white...

INcidentlaly, Phil Chapman, President of L-5 Society, was an
Antarctic observer left alone or with one or two others for long
periods; this was for Australia before he became a naturalized
US citizen and went into the astronaut program.

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

Date: 16 February 1982 03:58-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: life from comets
To: mclure at SRI-UNIX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Strange.  If the waters came from the comets, and the crust of
the earth, and leter life... then the waters and the firmament
were all mixed up in 100 billion comets until they got
themselves straightened out..
	Ye heavenly days, sound like the book of Genesis
(divided the waters which were under the firmament from the
waters which were above the firmament...)

	It also lets us SF writers have a good reason for
similar biochemistries on different planets, which is very convenient...

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

Date: 16 February 1982 04:04-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Hauling cargo into orbit    
To: TAW at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Just getting to some of my back mail.  Th eidea of using Shuttle
parts to come up with a new expendable kep tcropping up last
spring in the first Council meeting, and Hugh Davis (now of
Eagle Engineering, formerly of NASA Transportation Office)
worked up a strong briefing on it.  I am glad to see Boeing is
now seriously studying it.
	The Shuttle technologies are very advanced; the one
thing I have against Bruce Murray's notins of buying Titans is
why bother with 30-year-old propulsoin technology when you have
something a little more modern?

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

Date: 16 February 1982 04:10-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: How 'bout a RING!
To: HAGERTY at RUTGERS
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

As iot happens, Bob Salkeld has a patent on a ring!  Tether SPS
or communications satellites in a full ring and overspin it; the
result is more stable than if it were simply orbiting, and makes
station keeping easier. Or so he and a couple of other Space
Council people tell me.

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

Date: 16 Feb 1982 1029-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Isolation
To:   space at MIT-MC  

One can imagine that while the home colony will suffer few of the
isolation problems of Antarctica, there will be smaller outposts
(mining stations in the Belt or on the moon) where the Antarctic
analogy will be applicable.  In addition, it is (unfortunately) 
likely that colonists will not be amongst the first to go.  The
first few outposts will probably be inhabited by people who signed
up with every intention of coming home at the end of their tours.
(where home will be, after a long tour in Luna City is an interesting
question.  Heinlein wrote a marvelous story about precisely that,
whose name I can't recall)

Communications are a very important point.  Space colonists will
be the first colonists in history that can leave home without ever
losing touch with the folks.  This could be very important in terms
of enticing new colonists.  (''You'd love free-fall, Mom.  We just 
saw this little place up by the spin axis that you and Dad could 
have for a song...'')

But all of these points aside, if you can show a few years in
an Artic/Antarctic research station on your resume, I certainly
don't think it would disqualify you for a job in space.  Rather
the opposite...

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

Date: 16 Feb 1982 1049-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Delivering the goods... 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

	Date: 16 February 1982 04:04-EST
	From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
	Subject: Hauling cargo into orbit    
	
		The Shuttle technologies are very advanced; the one
	thing I have against Bruce Murray's notins of buying Titans is
	why bother with 30-year-old propulsoin technology when you have
	something a little more modern?
	
Who was it that said ''Better is the enemy of Good Enough''???

Sorry, just couldn't resist that.  I agree with your comments above
entirely.  The problem with using Titans *to the exclusion of the 
SRB-X concepts* is that thirty year technology gap.  If, however,
we could develop SRB-X *and* turn some of the Titan boosters
into cargo ships (presumably as DOD decides to replace the siloed
ICBMs with fresh Titans, or new technology) then we would be winning
all around.  The more launch capacity we have, the better.  

The nice thing about SRB class ships is that you are using the same
technology all up and down the line.  No more of this custom rocket
jazz.  Replaceable, reusable and mass produceable want to be the
design philosophy of spacecraft.  But I would hate to see all those
lovely Titans go the way of the Saturn 5 sitting on the Kennedy Space
Center lawn (When you think of all the millions of man-hours that 
went into producing a flyable bird, only to have it become the world's
most expensive lawn ornament..... weep for Congress, they know not
what they have done.)

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

Date: 16 Feb 1982 2146-EST
From: HAGERTY at RUTGERS
Subject: Re-Ring
To: space at MIT-MC

Well, at last, for a change, someone agrees with me.  I originally
applied the ring idea when someone mentioned crowding around the
equator with sattelites.  Since then, REM and I have exchanged a
couple of thoughts on the matter (COSMOS Ringed Planet...)- he feels
that it would not be practical around a star for energy capturing
reasons.  Ok, so there is some risk that a RING of people on earth
would be smashed...but as a port/repair/production 'center' it would
be most practical. Then again, I am no expert-just a dreamer.
/Greg:
-------

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

Date: 17 Feb 82 1:33-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
To: space at mc, sf-lovers at ai
CC: geoff at csl
Subject: More on upcoming L-5 conference

From Pournelle:

L-5 CONFERENCE   2-4 april 1982  Los Angeles AIRPORT HYATT

THEME: Citizens in space; space development.
GUESTS OF HONOR: Robert A. Heinlein, author
		 Fred Haise, VP Grumman (Apollo 13 Commander)
KEYNOTE SPEAKER:  Hans Mark, Deputy Director NASA
Honored Guest: Representative Newt Gingrich

Workshop to design lunar colony; space suit design; strategy and
tactics of space politics; propulsion; asteroid mines.  Most
members of Citizens Advisory Council an Natonal Space Policy
will attend.
Membership: General, $35 ($25 L-5 or AAS members); Banquet $25
Professoinal Membership (includes banquet) $75
	Professional membership includes reception for guests of
honor etc. Friday evening.  There will be an open party for all
members Saturday night (poolside,  weather permitting).
	Intention is to mix enthusiasts and professionals and
politicians and citizens and everyone try to learn from the
others. 

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

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

19-Feb-82  0319	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #109       
Date: 19 Feb 1982 0318-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #109    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 109

Today's Topics:
			   Heinlein short-story
		     Heinlein story/ Luna City "home"
		 "All those lovely Titans going to waste"
			      Using Titans 
			       L-5 Society
	   KING can't get this, so rerouting to digest instead
		      MARCH '82 SHUTTLE LAUNCH DATE?
		      Twisting of orbital platforms
		   Re-Ring / my ring better than yours
		 Re: Re-Ring / my ring better than yours
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 02/18/82 1129-EDT
From: GNC at LL
Subject: Heinlein short-story
To: space @ mit-mc

  I believe that the Heinlein story to which Tom Wadlow referred is
 "It's Great to be Back", from "The Green Hills of Earth" collection.

                                                  Joe Baldassini
-------

[That's the one.  Thanks, Joe.  --Tom W.]

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

Date: 18 Feb 1982 09:56 PST
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Heinlein story/ Luna City "home"
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC
cc: Ciccarelli

-----
...(where home will be, after a long tour in Luna City is an interesting
question.  Heinlein wrote a marvelous story about precisely that,
whose name I can't recall)
-----

Tom Wadlow -- you may be thinking of "The Menace from Earth", or of the
novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

Regarding "losing touch with the folks" -- regardless of the video bandwidth
used to "call home", Luna citizens have the unavoidable two-seconds-plus delay
between action and reaction.

I think it's something you'd get used to, especially with video, but I know how
annoying the 500msec "hop" delay for today's satellite-relayed long-distance
phone calls can be [I got delays occasionally when calling from Arizona to
Florida, when I lived in Arizona recently].

Speculation -- would cheap "picturephone" service keep people *here on the
planet* from "losing touch with the folks"?

/John

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

Date: 18 Feb 1982 10:23 PST
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: "All those lovely Titans going to waste"
To: Space at MIT-MC
cc: Ciccarelli

Making an analogy with computer science, I think of "finding uses for" all
the computer hardware built just SEVEN years ago (memory boards with
256-bit chips, "4004" processors) that's now languishing somewhere in
DOD's basement.  And I soon dismiss the possibility for several reasons
that are applicable to ANY quickly-evolving technology, i.e. launch
vehicle design.  Though the Titan would be "expendable" -- no need to "fix
it" -- these arguments still hold some water

[1] Spare parts availability.  You cannot find replacements for many of
the electronic components (logic chips, for example) incorporated into
even fairly recent designs, let alone 30-year-old Titans.  And even
"slight" redesign (to work around parts you can't get) is out of the
question.

[2] Documentation.  The "science" of documentation of large systems has
been maturing rapidly; it may be prohibitively expensive to educate those
who will be required to learn the equipment.

[3] Basic advances in the state of the art.  The equipment may not have
the functions you need, because it was designed when those functions were
too expensive, or not technically realizable, or simply not yet thought
of!  Likewise, your support equipment (tracking stations; telemetry
programs...) may use a later, more advanced technology incompatible with
the stuff you'd like to "reuse".

I think we'd better total up the "hidden costs" of reusing ANYTHING before
doing so.  The money, time and energy might be better spent on creating
low-cost spinoffs of Shuttle technology.  We may find the Titan is no
bargain even for FREE!

/John

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

Date: 18 Feb 1982 1045-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Using Titans 
To:   space at MIT-MC  


Unfortunately, the computer analogy is not quite on the mark.  We
have Titans, but they are not in mothballs.  They are in silos,
surrounded by people who know the intricacies of Titan maintenance
and launch procedures.  If we had to re-furbish them, I would
agree, but they are *supposed* to be flight-ready today.  If we
allow the technical expertise to disappear, they will be impossible
to use.  But that should not be the case yet.

Admittedly, I am in favor of developing Shuttle related launch systems
in any event.  But the Titan scheme should be looked at before they
are replaced, to see if the cost is not prohibitive.  

An interesting question might be: If we suddenly acquire a massive
launch capability, what would we do with it??

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

Date: 18 Feb 1982 09:00:59-PST
From: E.jeffc at Berkeley
To: v:space@mit-mc
Subject: L-5 Society

Checking over the latest Silicon Gulch Gazette, it appears that
the L-5 Society has a booth at the next West Coast Computer Faire
in San Francisco.  I guess I have no choice but to visit their
booth, as I am dying of curiosity as to what they have to say
to a bunch of hackers.

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

Date: 18 February 1982 15:57-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  KING can't get this, so rerouting to digest instead
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

COMSAT@MIT-MC 02/18/82 04:04:41 Re: Msg of Wednesday, 10 February 1982 01:51-EST
To: REM at MIT-MC
FAILED: KING at KESTREL; Host appears to be permanently down or not accepting mail.
 Failed message follows:
-------
Date: 10 February 1982 01:51-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: half-time power  from the moon
To: KING at KESTREL

It would be rather silly to put a power station on the far side of the
moon and make an electrical conduit to bring the electricity 1500 miles
to the polar region where it would face Earth half the year, and not bring
it a few hundred more miles so it'd face the Earth year around.
I think your design is a straw man. The expense of that extra few hundred
miles of conduit would be small compared to the money already invested,
and would double the uptime.

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

From: HQM@MIT-ML
Date: 02/18/82 16:34:34
Subject: MARCH '82 SHUTTLE LAUNCH DATE?

HQM@MIT-ML 02/18/82 16:34:34 Re: MARCH '82 SHUTTLE LAUNCH DATE?
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
DOES ANYONE KNOW THE PROJEECTED LAUNCH DATE FOR THE NEXT
SHUTTLE MISSION?

AND POSSIBLY ANY INTERESTING GOALS OF THIS FLIGHT?

(PLEASE SEND A REPLY TO HQM@AI, AS I AM NOT ON
SPACE MAILING LIST)

THANK YOU

HENRY MINSKY

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

Date: 18 February 1982 18:21-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Twisting of orbital platforms
To: CARLF at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

A long thin rope doesn't work because it provides only longitudinal
force, no torque.  If the weight pulls sideways in an effort to
restore the SPS to its correct attitude, the rope just bends
instead of applying torque at the other end where it attaches to
the SPS or other object.  You need either a small weight on the end
of a long rigid object such as a beam with supports:
    **********--------
    *        *        --------
    *        *                --------
    *  S P S *========================WEIGHT
    *        *                --------
    *        *        --------
    **********--------
or a larger weight closer:
    **********====*********
    *        *    * VERY  *
    *  S P S *====* LARGE *
    *        *    * WEIGHT*
    **********====*********
In either case the supports must be resistant to torque, thus with
a long weight with support wires tapering back to opposite sides
of the SPS (first diagram above) the force on the guide wires
will be several times the sidewards force on the conter-weight.

Does anybody have figures on the total mass of an SPS capable of
supplying 10% of USA electricity needs, on the restoring torque
needed to maintain its angular position within 10 degrees
either way from center, the diameter of the SPS capable of
holding the support wires, the proposed mass of the counterweight
and its proposed distance from the SPS, and thus the tension
needed in the guy wires?

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

Date: 18 February 1982 18:44-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re-Ring / my ring better than yours
To: HAGERTY at RUTGERS
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: 16 Feb 1982 2146-EST
    From: HAGERTY at RUTGERS
			      Since then, REM and I have exchanged a
    couple of thoughts on the matter (COSMOS Ringed Planet...)- he feels
    that it would not be practical around a star for energy capturing
    reasons.  
No, you have it backwards. I said a ring around a planet as shown in
Cosmos (located about 1/2 radius above the surface where orbital speed
 is about 12 orbits per day, but complete with about 40 columns reaching
 down to the surface forcing it to go only 1 orbit per day thus forcing
 the columns to support it from below), wouldn't be especially good for
catching energy, and would be too dangerous but a ring of SPSs around
the Sun would be dandy. (Sagan's planet-ring would span 8000 miles
across whereas a ring around the sun would span 292,000,000 miles
and thus collect 36,000 times as much sunlight if it had the same
width in the polar direction and the same optical density and
efficiency. Other factors are that putting stuff in orbit around
the Sun costs more than putting in LEO around Earth, but putting
up rigid ring with lots of physical support beams is probably much
more expensive than just orbiting stuff anywhere in the solar system,
so I think the ring-around-sun would be better than a ring-around-planet.

Re use of ring-around-planet as spaceport. I wonder if it would be
any cheaper than building a dome around the Earth to keep in the
atmoshere, evacuating the air above the dome, and launching spaceships
by mass drivers above the dome??
(Just for fun, imagine the environmental impact report for EITHER.)

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

Date: 18 Feb 1982 2011-EST
From: C. Greg Hagerty <HAGERTY at RUTGERS>
Subject: Re: Re-Ring / my ring better than yours
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: : ;
In-Reply-To: Your message of 18-Feb-82 1844-EST

Well, that makes sense.  A dome would be quite expensive and REALLY
throw off the environmental balance. One may wonder how fragile this
balance really is: How much arisol-spray do you use. If you throw too
many pennies into Odell Lake, fish type B will die, causing fish type
A to die.. Skylab? ..

NOW, Skylabs (instead of threatening the last two KooKoo birds in
existance (on a hidden island of course)) along with the other
falling/unfalling junk and satellites, could be harnessed togeather in
the days of the space shuttle.[Yielding a ring with production
possibility, political controvercy and all] Instead of killing the
last 2 KooKoo birds with fallout from fusion-powered spacecraft (which
could be built on the ring), we can kill them with the trivial shade
of our ring (a thin ring), falling nuts and bolts, possibly the ring
itself (after the explosion of a fusion-powered space ship) - but have
enough fusion-powered spaceships to find another habitable planet (to
breed KooKoo birds on). /Greg:
-------

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

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

Partially butchered Space Digest.                 Volume 2 : Issue 110
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:
			 SPS tidal stabilization
			 SPS tidal stabilization
			      Using Titans 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Friday, 19 February 1982  09:29-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: SPS tidal stabilization
To: space at mit-mc, REM at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	I'm back on line, at least for the moment.  You can send to me
and expect replies.
	This concerns your message  about SPS stabilization by  masses
on the ends of booms.  You don't need

	=== -
	|S|         -
	|P|=================(mass)
	|S|         -
	=== -



.  This


			     -  ===  -
		-		|S|		-
     (mass1)			|P|			(mass2)
		-		|S|		-
			     -	===  -

will serve.

	Note the  kinship between  the design  and that  of a  bicycle
wheel.  Remember that spokes are  tension members of a bicycle  wheel.
You may need  to extend the  effective length of  the SPS by  sticking
booms off its ends.

			      -  |  -
                        -        |        -
                  -            =====            -
         (mass1)               |SPS|               (mass2)
                  -            =====            -
                        -        |        -
                              -  |  -

	I  doubt  this  will  be  necessary,  but  I  will  try   some
computations when I get the time.  (huh!)

						Dick

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

Date: 19 February 1982 15:44-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPS tidal stabilization
To: KING at KESTREL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

If you extend booms off the sides (to extend the base for the triangular
support wires for the weights), they too must be supported,
although since they are considerably shorter than the main booms you
might get away with triangular-cross-truss aluminum beams instead
of explicit support wires in large tringular position.

                -|X|-
        -------  |X|  -------
-------          |X|           -------
W                SPS                 W
-------          |X|           -------
        -------  |X|  -------
                -|X|-

You see, when the SPS drifts out of correct attitude and the tidal
force wants to pull the weights clockwise, the force on the upper-right
(and lower left) guy wire is increased relative to the upper-left
(and lower-right) wire, so the attach-point at top (and bottom) wants to be
pulled clockwise, with the same torque as the original weights. The
difference is the point of application is closer to center (thus higher
thrust over shorter moment-arm) so cross-supported truss might be
cost-effective where it wasn't for long distances such as all the way out
to the weights.

Note, if cross-supported aluminum beams are the standard way of
building, using little robots that make the beams continuously
at low cost, it may be cheaper to use beams everywhere rather than
to use other things that must be tooled up specially. In that case,
rather than have a weight or a pair of weights, just stick out a
very very long beam and let it be its own weight (the part near the
end is most effective, the part near the SPS is mostly wasted,
but beam is so cheap we use the word in the singular like we use
other bulk cargo on Earth...). Near the place where the beam
attaches to the SPS we may need to attach triangular support
for extra strength, perhaps we use beams for that too, thus
achieving compressive strength needed during rocket firings.

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

Date: 20 February 1982 09:12-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Using Titans 
To: TAW at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

If we suddenly acquire a gigantic launch capability, put up a
space station right away, or lots of parts that will be useful for making one.
For example, we could put up tanks of oxygen etc. that are sure to be useful
later no matter what our final design will be, and canned food, etc.
If the space station is designed and built and waiting to be launched,
put it up, otherwise just put up the accessories/supplies that we're
pretty sure will be useful later.
Maybe buy a space station from the USSR and put it up?

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

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

21-Feb-82  0314	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #111       
Date: 21 Feb 1982 0312-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #111    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:
			    how old Titan II?
		      twisting of orbital platforms
			     ring a ding ding
			      Using Titans 
			       L-5 Society
		 "All those lovely Titans going to waste"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     19 February 1982 2015-cst
From:     Bill Vaughan               <VaughanW at HI-Multics>
Subject:  how old Titan II?
To:       space at mc

1t's 1982 unless Multix has got another time warp... so I make those
titans to be 20 years old, not 30! (Old Titan II just fine thanx)

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

Date:     19 February 1982 2018-cst
From:     Bill Vaughan               <VaughanW at HI-Multics>
Subject:  twisting of orbital platforms
To:       space at mc

The scheme you are talking about is called "gravity gradient
stabilization " and was first tried out on some very early Pioneers in
about 1960 give or take a couple. It works.

Basically you take a long thin rope with a mass (pendulum, plumb-bob,
call it what you will) at one end and the satellite at the other.  Some
of the early schemes used two long thin ropes attached to top & bottom
of satellite with weights at each end, like this:

                bob
                 |        The whole affair aligns its long axis
                 |        with the gravity gradient, i.e. normal
    towards      |        to the direction of orbit, or pointing
      the        |        towards the C.G. of the primary.  
     Earth     /-+-\
       |       |   | bird
       |       \-+-/
       V         |        It works just like a plumb bob, or like the 
                 |        tides, if you prefer.  It doesn't need to be
                 |        rigid, because the ropes are in tension.  In
                 |        fact, it is frictional damping in the ropes
                bob       (I think) that makes the system settle down.

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

Date:     19 February 1982 2036-cst
From:     Bill Vaughan               <VaughanW at HI-Multics>
Subject:  ring a ding ding
To:       space at mc

the ring is a neat idea but there may be a problem.  If the ring is
rigid it is orbitally unstable; Larry Niven discovered this (or more
likely somebody pointed it out to him) after RINGWORLD was published &
the result was described somewhere (Analog?) but also in THE RINGWORLD
ENGINEERS.

I don't know whether a flexible ring is stable or not; my gut says it
may be (since a discontinuous ring is stable) but man's guts were not
made for orbital mechanics as witness the higher/faster/lower/slower
discussion of a few days ago.

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

Date: 20 February 1982 02:50-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Using Titans 
To: TAW at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The second meeting of the Citizens advisory council on National
Space policy has one paper n the report that is relevent to
this; we have ALWAYS underestimated our requirements for launch
capability for both LEO and HEO.  Even in terms of just
communications, commercial, weather, and USAF payloads, it is
likely that we will be feeling a real pinch in not many years.
Thus if Titan could be used...
	It is interesting to develop space plans based on the
cost of launches; Gary Hudson has worked out some interesting
numbers.  His idea of bringing cost down was to relax some
reliability requirements, butr make each launch ten times
cheaper.  Payload costs become important under this sceheme, of
course...

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

Date: 20 February 1982 02:53-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: L-5 Society
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

According to our membership figures, about 1/4 of the Society
have some kind of professional connection with computers, and
many are hackers...

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

Date: 20 February 1982 02:46-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: "All those lovely Titans going to waste"
To: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, CICCARELLI at MIT-MC

Arthur Kantrowitz (current Chmn of Board of L-5 Society) has an
interesting story:  back when first announcement of going to the
Moon was made, the cost of putting a pound in orbit using Titan
was about $2000.  Figure that a 1,000,000 pound device could go
from Earth orbit to Moon landing and back to Earth orbit, and
that there was no real learning curve on the cost of a pound in
oribt, the whole affair would be $2 billion.  But when he asked
why, he got very angry responses from White House and PSAC.
	turns out LBJ wanted some big high-tech factories in the
South, and developing Saturn was the way to get that.
	How true the explanation is I wouldn't say; you can ask
Arthur about it at the L-5 Convention if you come...

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

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

22-Feb-82  0316	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #112       
Date: 22 Feb 1982 0315-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #112    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 112

Today's Topics:
			      Administrivia
		    Honest Ron's Surplus Spaceships...
		      twisting of orbital platforms
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 1982 2108-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Administrivia
To:   space at MIT-MC
CC:   rem at MIT-MC 

As most of you probably noticed another totally batshit set of digests
emanated from this site over the weekend.  This time the problem was that
Friday's digest was recursively included in Saturday's digest which
inexplicably got mailed out twice, the two copies comming about 30 minutes
apart.  This was caused by (or perhaps was the cause of), at least in
part, the mailer task looping for about 24 hours over the weekend.
Basically this system SUX.  I'm working on a replacement but it will be
some while in the construction.  Please bear with me.
	Thanks,
	Ted Anderson [The Moderator]

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

Date: 21 Feb 1982 1426-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Honest Ron's Surplus Spaceships...
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I wonder what the orbit cost per pound is on a *second-hand* Titan?
If all they do is scrap them at the end of their ''tour of duty'' as
ICBMs, would the cost be just the price of transport, checkout and launch?
(Presumably people would frown on launches directly from the silos). Are
there any existing Titan launch complexes in use today, or would one have
to be built?  I would think that you could adapt an old missle base if you
wanted to but an existing,tested site would sure make life easier.

I like REMs idea of putting cheap canisters of raw material into orbit for
future use.  I would guess that the cans just need some small
orbital correction devices and a radio beacon.  That means that even NASA
could be expected to develop them in a reasonably short time.

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

Date: 21 February 1982 20:54-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: twisting of orbital platforms
To: VaughanW at HI-MULTICS
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Hmmm, putting weight at end of rope doesn't help at all for moment arm
because ropes pull longitudinally only (except for some dynamic
damping), but does help in terms of gravity difference that generates
the tital force in the first place. Maybe a short supported column
to create a decent moment arm, with a weight on a long rope attached
to it to create large tidal differences, would be optimal.

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

Date: 22 February 1982 03:52-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

It seems almost a shame that the great reptiles were exterminated
by that comet. Just think if they had survived and developed space
travel, they could save lots of money inhabiting space by sending up eggs
and having a nursary up in space instead of having to send up fullsize
people like we mammals have to do presently.

By the way, "Life on Earth" is a really good program of interest to
those who like to understand evolution. The episode on amphibians
just ended, and this next week comes the episode on reptiles.

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

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

23-Feb-82  0320	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #113       
Date: 23 Feb 1982 0319-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #113    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 113

Today's Topics:
			     Recycling Titans
		      More Politics & Marginal Costs
		      "30-year-old Titans... oops!"
	   "Man's guts were not made for orbital mechanics..."
			 SPS tidal stabilization
		    Re: twisting of orbital platforms
		      Twisting of orbital platforms
			 SPS tidal stabilization
			   launching old titans
			 Tidal stabilization    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 1982 0950-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Recycling Titans
To: space at MIT-MC

	Unless you use  the silos the  Titans are in  now, you have  the
cost of  emptying  them of  propellant  (Titan propellants  are  noxious
liquids), hauling them out to  KSC (where you can  use LC 43) to  launch
them. This would not be cheap.

	On the other hand, you can't launch them from where they are now
because the first stages  would drop on somebody  (unless you shot  them
all into near-polar orbit, even then Candians probably would not like to
have 10  ton+  hunks of  junk  falling from  30  miles up  on  to  their
territory).  Remember, the Titan silos were placed for a one-shot,  over
the pole trajectory to the USSR, and if you get to the point of lighting
those babies it really  doesn't matter if a  crashing first stage  kills
some caribou.

	Nice idea,  though  -  using  the old  beasts  would  save  some
hardware  purchase  costs,  though  the   launch  costs  would  not   be
appreicably less than that of the Titan III (a favorite of the Air Force
for launching recon sattellites and used for Viking and Voyager).
-------

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

Date: 22 Feb 1982 0813-PST
Sender: WARD at USC-ISIF
Subject: More Politics & Marginal Costs
From: Craig E. Ward <Ward at USC-ISIF>
To: Space at MIT-MC
Cc: Ward at USC-ISIF, Pourne at MIT-MC, TCS at ECL, Riedel at ECL, Katz at USC-ISIF, REM at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF]22-Feb-82 08:13:13.WARD>

I don't want to say "I told you so", but I told you so.  In this
Saturday's (Feb.  20) Santa Ana Register an article appeared with
the headline "Space shuttle: an economic 'monstrosity'?
$2-billion- a-year savings seen if project is scrapped".  It was
written by a Peter Larson of the Orlando Sentinel Star.  One of
the article's main points is that James Van Allen says so in his
Science article.

The reporter also interviewed a NASA spokesman named Charles
Redmond who is quoted as saying NASA isn't sure about the Shuttle
paying off.  ("There's a lot of corridor talk...").  I wonder
about this.

Has anyone ever tried to figure out what the marginal cost of a
shuttle launch is?  (The marginal cost of something is the cost
of doing or making one more of it).  In my view, the money spent
on developing the shuttle can not be used in figuring the
marginal cost.  That money is a sunk cost and is gone.  We can
only look at future expenses and returns.  The Shuttle is here
and we would be losing everything to drop it now.  Also, it would
seem to me that the marginal cost of throw-aways will be much
greater because you have to keep building new ones.

Anyone have figures?

Craig

P.S.  It may also be worthy of note that the AP article below
Larson's was headlined "Shuttle test troubled, but called
'success'".  It reported some of the problems during Friday's
test run.  The article itself was not bad, but that headline
makes it sound as if NASA is trying to hide something.  Do we
also have a problem with press coverage?

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

Date: 22 Feb 1982 08:40 PST
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: "30-year-old Titans... oops!"
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Oops!  Somehow my mind transmuted Jerry Pournelle's comment about "30- year-
old PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY" (SPACE V2 #108) ...into... "30-year-old Titans".

A quick subtraction puts "30 years ago" as 1952, which may be valid for the
technology, but not for the missile...

(Apologies...)
/John

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

Date: 22 Feb 1982 08:51 PST
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: "Man's guts were not made for orbital mechanics..."
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: Ciccarelli

Methinks you speak of dirt-siders, spasebaw!

The first generation that is born and raised in orbit will have no problem with
the everyday mechanics...  Playing catch, that parabolic pastime for Grounders,
might be one of the ways a kid will learn physics "up there".

Possibly, someone raised in "free fall" would just develop "orbital chauvinism"
with regard to mechanics, just as we surface-dwellers have our "planetary
chauvinism".

/John

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

Date: 22 Feb 1982 10:28 PST
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: SPS tidal stabilization
To: King at KESTREL, REM at mit-mc
cc: SPACE@MIT-MC, Wedekind.es

I missed some things here. Could someone recap and tell me precisely the
problem you are trying to solve? Does it arise from the fact that an SPS
would be so big that the gravity gradient becomes relevant?

					Jerry

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

Date:     22 February 1982 1226-cst
From:     Bill Vaughan               <VaughanW at HI-Multics>
Subject:  Re: twisting of orbital platforms
To:       REM at MIT-MC
Cc:       space at mc

yup, weight is just to increase tidal forces.  Moment arm is simply
distance between upper & lower attachment points, which can be several
feet; or distance between single attachment point and bird's center of
mass when only one pendulum is used.
    My recollection (possibly faulty) says the cables were *quite* long
(several hundred meters) and that it took quite a few orbits before
everything settled down nicely.  I notice that comsats don't seem to use
gravity-gradient stabilization so maybe it turned out to be a failure
practically.  The results are probably in some NASA tech brief somewhere
but I don't want to hunt through NTIS for it.

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

From: CARLF@MIT-AI
Date: 02/22/82 13:40:34
Subject: Twisting of orbital platforms

CARLF@MIT-AI 02/22/82 13:40:34 Re: Twisting of orbital platforms
To: CARLF at MIT-AI, REM at MIT-MC
CC: SPACE at MIT-MC
	Everybody seems to be talking about putting weights on the 
end of ropes. My idea is to get rid of the weight on the end by 
replacing it with more rope. I figured this out recursively by 
noticing that a weight could be replaced by a rope with a
smaller weight on the end, and then that weight could be
replaced by more rope and an even smaller weight, and so on.
This can be very economical, since moment of inertia goes as
the square of the distance while tidal acceleration is
proportional to distance. I never meant that a rope alone could
be a stabilizing device.

				-- Carl

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

Date: Monday, 22 February 1982  13:18-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
To: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
cc: REM at mit-mc, SPACE at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL
Subject: SPS tidal stabilization

	Yes.  That's exactly the problem.  You have two extended parts
to an SPS: the microwave antenna (always more-or-less perpendicular to
a line from it through the Earth's center) and the solar collector
(varying orientations).  The (much larger) solar collector is usually
not in a stable position and the position of the (much heavier but
smaller) antenna is always metastable.

					Dick

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

Date:     22 February 1982 1533-cst
From:     Bill Vaughan               <VaughanW at HI-Multics>
Subject:  launching old titans
To:       space at mc

Gee, maybe we *should* launch them directly from the silos.  I mean,
most everybody in Tucson wants to get rid of them, plus the L-5 society
sort of lives there, so we could combine the whole thing -- put together
a nice big cheering section for the launch, led by Mo Udall of course;
give the southwesterners a chance to see a spaceship go up without
having to pay airfare to Canaveral;  incidentally destroy the silos so
they can't put Minutemen in them (nobody araund Tucson wants that to
happen anyway) and - at least temporarily - take the "smog capital of
Arizona" title away from Phoenix (*my* hometown)!

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

Date: 22 Feb 1982 1413-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Tidal stabilization    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I would like to suggest that since someone who is presumably an expert on
the subject has studies the problem of tidal stabilization of satellites
we should check with that source.  Bill Vaughan suggest that a NASA
technical brief exists on the subject, perhaps someone should look up that
paper and report back to the digest.

As some people have suggested the problem is quite complex.  In particular
the SPS itself needs to point to the sun, not the earth.  The microwave
transmitting antenna needs to point to the earth, so these two systems need
to be connected by a heavy power cable but decoupled enough to allow them to
point in different directions.

Clearly this is a system that is much too complicated to be designed over
a once-a-day general distribution digest.
	Ted Anderson

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

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

24-Feb-82  0314	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #114       
Date: 24 Feb 1982 0313-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #114    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 114

Today's Topics:
				 Quasars
	      Intergalactic Colonization - How hard is it}?
			       L-5 Society
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23-Feb-82  8:52:52 PST (Tuesday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Quasars
To: Space@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Reed
cc: Reed

A recent article in the LATimes 'dramatized' the plight of an astronomer
(whose name escapes me at the moment) who may lose his viewing priveleges
at Mt. Palomar, presumably because he holds controversial beliefs with
respect to the nature of quasars.

The article described the astronomer as believing that quasars are not
necessarily the extremely distant objects most other astronomers believe
they are. The committee responsible for allocating observatory time was
considering a cutback of time to this astronomer because his research
showed no direction or something of that nature.

An article on quasars in the Feb.  Scientific American espoused the
conventional view with no more than a reference to the fact that some
astronomers believe that quasars are nowhere as distant as is generally
accepted.

The LATimes article was a reasonably balanced account of both sides with
respect to the allocation problem, but neither it nor the SA article gave
any information as to what the alternative theory might be or why the
astronomer's investigations towards proof might be considered inadequate
and therefore worthy of termination.

Anyone out there know anything more?

	--	Larry		--

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

Date: 23 Feb 1982 0745-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Intergalactic Colonization - How hard is it}?
To: space at MIT-MC

There was an argument on this digest a few months ago about extraterrestrial
intelligence.  One argument against it said that if it existed in any
great profusion, at least one race would have expanded out through the
galaxy.  They aren't here, so there aren't very many ETI's.

While this argument isn't watertight, it can be extended.  What about
intergalactic colonization.  This at first seems ludicrous (millions and
millions of light years).  But, a ship travelling at .5c would reach
the M-31 in only 4 megayears, or the virgo cluster in 120 megayears, a small
fraction of the age of the universe.

I'll assume that we can design a payload that can stay dormant for millions
of years, activating itself at the end.  A problem here might be damage
to electronics and other information due to radiation.  A lot of shielding
may be required.  This depends on the density of intergalactic gas.

A bigger problem is to accelerate the ship to .5c.  Even this seems possible.
Bussard ramjets would be ideal, but we don't know how to make them work.
Carrying fuel for acceleration seems impractical (antimatter?).
One scheme that seems 'practical' is an overgrown mass driver.  While
the mass of a rocket goes up exponentially with the desired final
velocity, the mass of a linear accelerator is proportional to the square
of the final velocity.  So, let's build a mass driver that can accelerate
payloads at 1000g's.  To reach .5c at 1000g's take around 1.5E4 seconds
(a little over 4 hours), so the mass driver is around 700 million km long.
[I know it's picky but it's 7e8 miles, and 1.125e8 km -ota]

Energy requirements are high, but not impossible.  The sun puts out 4.0E26
joules/sec.  A mass of 1E9 kg traveling at .5c has kinetic energy of around
7.0E24 joules.  The rate of energy usage could be decreased by launching
the ship in pieces.

If we increase the acceleration by a factor of k we decrease the length
of the accelerator by k, and increase the rate of energy consumption by k.
An accelerator capable of doing 1 million gees would be only ~700,000 km
long, although I don't know what you'd accelerate in it.

Building structures this big that use this much energy will not be possible
soon.  But they seem easier to build than dyson spheres or ringworlds.

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

Date: 24 February 1982 04:24-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: L-5 Society
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

I spoke to Mr. Heinlein today and he definitely is coming to the
L-5 Conference.  Those interested shld send money:
	regular		banquet		professional  

l-5 member  $25		$25		$65 (includes banquet)

non-member  $35		$25		$75

student L5  $20		$25

student n   $30		$25

Send to  L-5 Society  Box 92056 Los Angeles CA 90009
Conference is April 2-4 (Fri-Sunday) Los Angeles Airport Hyatt

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

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

25-Feb-82  0321	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #115       
Date: 25 Feb 1982 0320-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #115    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 115

Today's Topics:
 re: giant mass driver to colonize other galazies by accelerating to c/2
 re: giant mass driver to colonize other galazies by accelerating to c/2
			       Re: Quasars
 re: giant mass driver to colonize other galazies by accelerating to c/2
			     Laser & Hydrogen
			 What a million Gs?!?   
			       Re: Quasars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 24 February 1982  08:09-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: re: giant mass driver to colonize other galazies by accelerating to c/2
To: dietz at usc-ecl, space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	How do you decelerate when you get there?

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

Date: 24 Feb 1982 1027-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: re: giant mass driver to colonize other galazies by accelerating to c/2
To: KING at KESTREL, space at MIT-MC
cc: DIETZ at USC-ECL

Deceleration:  Presumably with rockets, stellar sails, pressure of the
interstellar gas against magnetic fields (you'd have to ionize it first).
Steering when you get to the other galaxy is no problem: just put a
large electric charge on the ship and let the galactic magnetic field
move you around.  You could throw away most of the ship, or use it for
fuel.

Length of the Mass Driver:  c = 3.0E8 m/sec (m=meters), and g = 10 m/sec^2,
so it takes 1.5E8 / 1.0E4 = 1.5E4 seconds to reach .5c at 1000g's
(ignoring relativity).  During that time you travel .5at^2 = 
(.5)(1.0E4)(2.25E8) = 1.125E12 meters, or 1.125 billion kilometers.
(darn arithmetic errors!)

One millon g's:  Lest this figure seem ridiculous, let me note that
railguns have already achieved accelerations of over 1E6g's.  So it's
just engineering to design a railgun 1.1E6 km long.

The big advantage of linear accelerators is that energy is used much
more efficiently than in a rocket, where you have to use exponentially
increasing amount of energy to accelerate a payload to higher and
higher velocities.  The energy used in a mass driver grows more slowly.
Also, the mass driver can be used repeatedly.

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

Date: 24 Feb 1982 11:22 PST
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Quasars
In-reply-to: Reed.ES's message of 23-Feb-82  8:52:52 PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Reed.ES, Lynn.es

Halton Arp was the astronomer mentioned in the article. Everyone agrees that all
quasars show huge redshifts.  Essentially all normal galaxies are receding from
us, causing a red-direction Doppler shift (redshift) in their spectra.  The bigger
the redshift, the faster the recessional velocity.  The fact that the universe (on
the galactic scale) is expanding requires that distance and speed of recession be
directly related; that is, the faster the recession, the farther the galaxy is from
us.  

Now we have two choices in explaining quasars: 1) they follow the rules of
galaxies, and the huge redshifts mean huge recession velocities and huge
distances, or 2) there is some physical means (what means is not clear) that
redshifts quasar light, and they are not so distant nor receding.  

Arp is apparently the only astronomer of international note that believes the
second choice.  His contention is that some quasars show physical links with
normal galaxies that have small redshifts and are therefore nearby.  Most other
astronomers believe that the apparent physical connections have to be
coincidence of wispy objects nearby happening to lie in a line of sight with the
distant quasars and some nearby galaxy.  That seems easier to believe since no
one, after years of trying, has come up with a decent explanation of a
non-Doppler way to create huge redshifts in quasars.  Arp wants to continue
looking for physical connections to quasars to show that there are too many for it
to be line-of-sight coincidences, while other astronomers want a physical
explanation of the redshifts before spending much on the connections search.  

A few years ago, several astronomers were listening to Arp with interest, but
apparently from the Times article and a few others elsewhere on quasars, few
now give Arp much chance of being right.  

/Don Lynn

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

Date: Wednesday, 24 February 1982  11:26-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
To: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
cc: space at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL
Subject: re: giant mass driver to colonize other galazies by accelerating to c/2

	The ship has a momentum of 1.5e17 newton-seconds.  I suspect
it would be necessary to shoot a dummy load through the mass driver
backwards to avoid losing the mass driver after a couple of shots.
	I would design it as a series of separate modules "attached"
by station-keeping hardware.  Each module would have its own energy
storage system (and probably its own power plant).
	However, one wonders whether something analogous to a
traveling wave tube could be used.  Send your energy pulse down a
non-uniform helical superconducting cable wound in such a manner that
the spiraling electrical pulse's velocity matches the ship.  The
mechanism is simple, but now the energy has to be supplied all at once.
	I'd rather use a laser and have frozen Hydrogen on the tail of
the ship, to be heated within an inch of its life and sent back at
.99c.  Anyone have any thoughts on this?
	Sorry about the lack of detail - I'm pressed for time right
now.
	
					Dick

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

Date: 24 Feb 1982 1200-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Laser & Hydrogen
To: king at KESTREL
cc: space at MIT-MC

The problem with this scheme is that you have to accelerate your fuel,
along with the ship.  So, the amount of fuel increases exponentially
with the final velocity of the payload.  The mass driver avoids this 
problem.  Also, I imagine that heating the hydrogen to such high temperatures
will roast the ship in a bath of x-rays and gamma-rays.

Recoil can be minimized by making the launcher very massive. If it
weighs 1.0E12 tons the velocity increment is 150 m/sec.  By launching
when the launcher is on opposite sides of the sun the delta-v's will
cancel out.  Thumbnail calculations indicate that a trillion tons is
bout the mass of an asteroid 5-10 km in diameter, so materials are no
problem.

The biggest problem is the energy source.  It can be massive, though, because
you don't have to accelerate it.

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

Date: 24 Feb 1982 1502-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: What a million Gs?!?   
To:   space at MIT-MC, Dietz at USC-ECL    

In support of Paul's claim that a million Gs is "reasonable", consider
this:  I understand that experiencing an acceleration of 100,000 Gs is not
uncommon for an artillary shell.  Now I don't know that this is the same
type of artillary pieces but I know of at least two fairly sophisticated
devices that live in artillary shells.  On is a nuclear warhead, the other
is a frob which actually looks for tanks in some fashion.  I don't know
any of the details, however.  At any rate, I'd be surprised if something
interesting like an intergalactic probe couldn't be built to withstand
1 million Gs.
	Ted Anderson

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

Date: 24-Feb-82 15:17:52 PST (Wednesday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Quasars
In-reply-to: Lynn's message of 24 Feb 1982 11:22 PST
To: Lynn
cc: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, Reed

If I remember correctly, a large gravitational potential can also cause  a
redshift. Is it not  possible that a quasar's  redshift could be at  least
partially gravitational in  nature, thus reducing  the recession  velocity
(and therefore distance) for a given redshift?

On a scifi  tack, what would  a spaceship  travelling away from  us at  an
appreciable fraction  of the  speed of  light (say  .5c) look  like to  an
observer on earth? Would we  see a light source  with a redshift? Could  a
quasar be such a light source?

	--	Larry		--

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

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

26-Feb-82  0314	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #116       
Date: 26 Feb 1982 0314-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #116    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 116

Today's Topics:
				 Quasars
			    Wierd accelerators
		       flying short, stubby I-beams
				 Quasars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 1982 0716-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Quasars
To: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
cc: space at MIT-MC

Gravitational redshift is ruled out because the redshift is so great.
A large cluster of stars (say) of sufficient density to get that redshfit
would be unstable to gravitational collapse.

If the quasars are local objects associated with our galaxy, calculations
indicate that the energy necessary to accelerate them to their observed
velocities is many, MANY solar masses, far too much to be believable.
And why don't we see them around other galaxies, blue-shifted?

Some evidence for the traditional view includes the fact that quasars
resemble less active radio galaxies in that they have radio lobes,
and the observation of a gravitational lens involving a quasar.  This
last doesn't work unless the quasar is very far away.
-------

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

Date: 25 Feb 1982 09:40 PST
From: Stewart at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Wierd accelerators
To: Space@MIT-MC
cc: Stewart

Take the skyhook rope, tie a probe on the end, and whirl the affair around a
suitable asteroid.  As the rope wraps around the asteroid, the probe will reach 0.5
c and then you let go.

At least as feasible as the bloater drive.

	-Larry

PS  Remind me to write up my wood burning TV receiver.

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

Date: Thursday, 25 February 1982  09:41-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: flying short, stubby I-beams
To: ota at s1-a
cc: King at KESTREL, space at mit-mc

	I seem to remember that the strength required of an object  of
a given design to resist a  given acceleration is proportional to  the
cube root of its mass.  (All load-bearing members' cross sections  are
proportional to the square of a linear dimension, and the the mass  of
the object is proportional to the cube.)
	If I remember correctly, the  strength of structural steel  is
approximately 1000 KPSI.   If I wanted  to send an  I-beam to  another
galaxy, the load on  its base would have  to be < 1  PSI, so it  could
only be 6  inches tall.  My  recollection of steel's  strength may  be
wrong, but  not  drastically.  There  are  stronger materials,  but  a
factor-of-100  improvement  is  clearly   necessary  (it  would   seem
necessary for the ship to be at least 50 feet front-to-back).  I would
also assume that the intention  is to send something more  interesting
than an I-beam.
	Intellegent  artillery  shells  are   made  out  of   stronger
materials then  structural  steel.   They  also  are  virtually  solid
inside.  They  are  less then  6  feet  long, and  they  are  tapered.
Probably our artillery pieces deliver 100,000G because more then  that
was deforming even dumb, passive shells.

						Dick

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

Date: 25 Feb 1982 11:15 PST
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Quasars
To: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
cc: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, Wedekind.es

Larry,

	If you say that all of the quasar redshifts are due to velocities which are
unrelated to the recession of the galaxies then it's hard to explain why none of
them are blueshifted - that is, approaching us.

	Also, I think I read that people have reason to believe these redshifts
aren't due to gravity. Does anyone know more about this?

						Jerry 

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

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

28-Feb-82  0319	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #117       
Date: 28 Feb 1982 0318-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #117    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 117

Today's Topics:
				 quasars
			       Shuttle News
			  Quasars as spaceships
			       re: quasars
			      quasar beliefs
			     quasar redshifts
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: CARLF@MIT-AI
Date: 02/27/82 15:54:34
Subject: quasars

CARLF@MIT-AI 02/27/82 15:54:34 Re: quasars
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
	In the most recent (or perhaps last week's) issue of Nature
there are two articles on Arp's theory of the nearness of quasars,
both unfavorable. 
	The first article considers Arp's assertion that a survey of
the sky in the vicinity of nearby galaxies shows a higher than
average density of quasars, and thus that the quasars must be
associated with the nearby galaxies. Arp claims that the data have
one chance in 10^17 of happening by chance, but the article
disagrees with this. It states that the probability of the data
occuring by chance are about 1/2. The article's description of Arp's
method of analysis makes it seem dubious even to me, though I know
little of statistical analysis.
	The second article is of a statistical nature, and examines
Arp's claim that several sets of three quasars lie almost on
straight lines, and yet have very different redshifts, showing that
redshifts must not correlate with distance. The article disputes
Arp's claim that these alignments are immensely improbable. It
argues that Arp has incorrectly analyzed his data.  The suggestion
that quasars might be interstellar spaceships going away from us
makes me wonder why we don't see any coming toward us. Are we so
frightening that everyone is running away, or is something ghastly
going to happen to this part of the galaxy that we haven't noticed
yet?


					-- Carl

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

Date: Sat Feb 27 08:22:09 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!cbosg!harpo!npois!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle News
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


The unloading of supercold hydrogen and oxygen fuels went well,
just as their loading did, leading the way for the last major
step before the shuttle's countdown begins.  Also tested out
well were the three fuel cells and APU #1.  The fuel cell that
caused the problems during STS-2 had been replaced and all
three overhauled to prevent a recurrence of that problem.
If all goes on schedule now, loading of highly volatile
fuels into the Columbia's maneuvering system will start
next week.  It was this loading of nitrogen tetroxide and
liquid hydrazine that spilled during the pre-flight work
of STS-2 and subsequently delayed its launch while workers
fixed the tiles that were loosened during that accident.
As of now, the work for STS-3 is still a bit ahead of
schedule, giving a nice cussion if anything should go wrong.

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

Date: 27 Feb 1982 1722-PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Quasars as spaceships
To:   space at MIT-MC  

One of the features of efficient rockets is a tightly collimated
exhaust.  A rocket that converted a high mass fraction of its
fuel to energy (near photon drive) would emit mostly photons
frequency shifted by the motion of both the photon source and the
acceleration of the exhaust reflector/nozzle, and these photons
would be like a searchlight beam streaming from the rear of the
ship.  This beam would be so bright compared to any other emission
that it is probably safe to say that we could see the ship only when
the exhaust is pointed straight at us.  We would see a blue shift
only if a ship was using its engines to decelerate along our line of
sight. There may be better ways of decelerating than using mass quantities
of fuel, things like an interstellar hydrogen parachute, or interaction
with the galactic magnetic field, and these would render the ship
invisible to our feeble sensors in the only blue shift case.
Another, maybe significant, effect is relativistic beam angle aberration.
A source with a given beam angle seems to have a narrower beam
when it is coming at you and a wider angle when moving away.  Thus
we have a greater chance of seeing a red shifted receding beam source
than a blue shifted approaching one.

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

Date: 28 Feb 1982 00:24:14-PST
From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!dudek at Berkeley
To: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: re: quasars
Cc: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!ings@Berkeley

  Is this where to send space disgest stuff?
  There was an article in the Canadian Journal of Physics about 2 years
ago (I'll try & find it) postulating that quasars could be accounted for
as a statistical anomaly in the way spectral data was identified.  
Essentially, I think the thesis was that the "supposed" red shifts were 
identified by matching observed spectral lines with known arrangements
and then finding out how much the familiar configuration was shifted up the
spectral scale.  The author claimed that a number of spurious random
matches could account for "quasars", and in fact the number of known quasars
jived with this explanation.
			Gregory Dudek
			UNIX. of Toronto
			..decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!dudek

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

Date: Fri Feb 26 16:14:44 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: quasar beliefs
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I know nothing about the facts of the particular case of the astronomer
who may lose his observing time because of unconventional beliefs about
quasars.  But it is worth remembering that just because somebody holds
unconventional beliefs about some sacred cow does NOT mean that his
research is well-organized, properly thought out, and deserving of
observing time.  If his observing time is imperiled BECAUSE of his views,
that is deplorable.  But don't forget that there may be a simpler and
less dramatic explanation.

I confess to a strong suspicion myself that the standard "cosmological"
explanation of quasars is incorrect, but that does not blind me to the
possibility that people who agree with me may not be organizing their
work well enough to deserve time on scarce and expensive facilities.

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

Date: Fri Feb 26 16:44:01 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: quasar redshifts
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


The two possible explanations of the quasars given a few days ago
missed a third:  that the red shifts really are Doppler effect, but
this does not correlate with distance the way it does for galaxies.
In other words, you can eliminate the need for a non-Doppler redshift
mechanism if you can devise a way of accelerating starlike objects
to substantial fractions of c (interactions with the magnetic field
of an exploding galactic core?).  At one time this was a respectable
theory;  I don't know its current status.  One problem is that one
should then see some blueshifted objects as well, although one can
fend this off by claiming that we aren't looking at the right
wavelengths to see the major emissions of a massively blueshifted
object.  How this explanation stands in the presence of increasing
astronomy efforts in the UV and X-rays, I don't know.

Any attempt to avoid the "cosmological" explanation of quasars also
needs to bear in mind that things like the recent case of double
images of a quasar being formed by gravitational lens effects of
a distant galaxy DO put a lower bound on the distance of SOME quasars.

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

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

01-Mar-82  0317	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #118       
Date: 01 Mar 1982 0316-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #118    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:
			Comet strike this summer?
			      A Green Mars?
			 Quasar starships, contd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 1982 1303-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Comet strike this summer?
To: space at MIT-MC

The comet Swift-Tuttle may be returning this summer.  It was
first observed in 1862, and has a calculated period of around
120 years.  What makes Swift-Tuttle interesting is that it is
the comet responsible for the Perseid Meteor shower every August
10-14.  If the comet crosses the earths orbit at the right time
there could be a collision.  No one knows for sure, since the comet
has not been spotted since 1862 and the orbit is somewhat uncertain.
The editor of Sky and Telescope magazine's comet digest column
puts the chance of collision at around one in a million.

A near miss will be quite spectacular.  In any case, the Perseid shower
has been getting heavier in recent years, and promises to be even better
this year.
-------

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

Date: Fri Feb 26 19:05:42 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!rabbit!npois!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!isaacson at
       Berkeley
Subject: A Green Mars?
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


	This is an open invitation to all who wish to discuss the
matter of Terra Forming.  Anyone who is interested in this or other
related topics are welcome to send mail to me directly.  
	If you do not already know what this "Terra Forming" is, I
will explain.  Some futurists believe that is would not be impossible
to change the climatic and biological conditions of a planet such as
Mars to a condition where human life may exist.  Examples of the steps
needed to accomplish this are, the promotion of bacterial life on the
polar caps of Mars, the possibility of warming the planet by darkening the
surface, and the promotion of liquid water by a combination of the above.
	Obviously, many of the planets in our solar system are not 
nearly suited for an attempt at this great task.  However, tomorrow will
come and accomplishments of this nature will be attainable.

					send mail to:
					
					Wesley Kaplow
					
		        		c/o cmcl2!isaacson

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

Date:  1 Mar 1982 0146-EST
From: HPM at CMU-20C
Subject: Quasar starships, contd.
To: space at MIT-MC, hm60 at CMU-10A

A few calculations for a change - most raw data drawn from Osmer article
in February 1982 Scientific American:

Quasar redshifts (wavelength shift/wavelength) range from 1.8 to 3.56
with a peak at 2.2.  This corresponds to recession velocities (expressed
as fraction of lightspeed) of .77 to .91 with a peak at about .82 .

An approximation for beam angle aberration for small beam angles
(the range where tan(x) is approximately x) can be expressed by
                                                   1 + v
Apparent beam angle  =  Source frame beam angle *  -----
                                                   1 - v
where v is recession velocity as fraction of lightspeed.  Note that
the ratio inverts when v is replaced by approach velocity. For the
redshifts above, the beam spread is 7.7 to 21 with 10 typical.

A starship moving at the typical quasar velocity has its beam
widened by a factor of ten when accelerating, and narrowed by that
much when decelerating (if it uses its engine to decelerate).  The
solid angle is affected by the square of that amount - a factor of
100.  The ratio of solid angle of the beam of a ship accelerating
away from us (broadened by 100) and of a ship decelerating towards
us (narrowed by a factor of 100) is 10,000.  We are thus 10,000 times
as likely to see a ship leaving as approaching.

By the same argument, the blue shifted ones should be about 10,000
times brighter - but our lack of observing time in that spectral region
might explain the non-discovery of any so far - Note that only about
200 regular quasars have been identified so far in spot surveys.
Dimness of these sources is not correlated with redshift, and in the
most sensitive survey about 10 quasars per degree were found -
extrapolating to the rest of the sky that comes to about 500,000
quasars observable with a four meter telescope.  If they are
photon rockets and if their beam angle is pretty small (so we
see only a tiny fraction) this means billions of giant rockets
operating in our galaxy.  Note that a photon rocket with a mass
ratio under 10 accelerating and decelerating at .001 g can
cover a thousand light years in about 2000 years, reaching a
maximum v of .76 c in the process, all perhaps reasonable for
an advanced entity.  The relative slowness of the travel would
explain why we hadn't gotten any apparent visitors yet.  But watch
out for bright, blue shifted, quasars.  Of course it might be
considered polite not to turn your planet-destroying photon rocket
exhaust directly on your destination!
-------

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

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

02-Mar-82  0936	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #119       
Date: 02 Mar 1982 0313-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #119    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 119

Today's Topics:
		   quasars as spacecraft all receding?
			   Quasar speculations
			   Re: quasar redshifts
			 Russian probe on Sol II 
			  Red vs blue spaceships
[DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>: for space digest -- Implacations of quasar findings]
			       more quasars
				 Quasars
			    Soviet Space Probe
			    Pioneer's Birthday
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Monday, 1 March 1982  07:56-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: quasars as spacecraft all receding?
To: carlf at mit-ai, space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	If quasars are spacecraft, it seems likely that we would
onlysee the ones going away from us because it would be the exhaust
we're seeing.

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

Date:  1 Mar 1982 1117-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Quasar speculations
To: space at MIT-MC

	I have heard  a new speculation  from an astronomer  as to  what
quasars are: VERY young galaxies forming out of the primordial Big  Bang
produced hydrogen. Of course this assumes that the redshift for  quasars
are cosmological, that is due to their distance.

	The idea  is that  as all  galaxies  began to  form out  of  the
primordial hydrogen, a large  number of VERY  massive stars (>100  times
the mass of our local little star) formed quickly, burned their guts out
in a few million years and then exploded, dumping some of the stuff that
we are made of into the galaxy.

        For the  few million  years  that all  these massive  stars  are
shining, it  is  estimated  that  the  galaxy  would  be  VERY  luminous
(especially when you add in the ionized hydrogen clouds 100 kiloparseces
in diameter). And since their redshifts (even if off by a factor of two)
tell us that they  are 5 to  15 billion light  years away, meaning  that
looking at a quasar is viewing as close to the Big Bang as we are likely
to see from the surface of out planet.

        So there's more astronomical grist for the discussion mill.

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

Date: 1 Mar 1982 11:09 PST
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: quasar redshifts
In-reply-to: henry at Berkeley's message of Feb 26 16:44:01 1982
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

The Doppler-but-not-distant explanation of quasars wasn't considered because
there are not only no blueshifts, but no small redshifts either.  I refuse to
believe everything is pointing away from us (that's why we believe the
universe is expanding rather than that all distant galaxies happen to be traveling
specifically away from us); quasars should have randomly oriented motion with
respect to us, plus the general expansion of the universe (which would be
negligible close by).  If they are close and the shift is Doppler, this would result
in a variety of all intermediate shifts from highly red to highly blue.  

/Don Lynn

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

Date: 01 Mar 1982 1223-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Russian probe on Sol II 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a074  0625  01 Mar 82
PM-Soviets-Space,350
Soviet Space Probe Reaches Venus
    MOSCOW (AP) - A Soviet space probe made a soft landing on the planet
Venus today and was sending back photographs and information from
soil samples, the official news agency Tass reported.
    The Soviets and the United States have previously landed unmanned
space probes on Venus, the nearest planet to Earth. Tass said a second
module is due to land on Venus Friday.
    Tass said a module descended from the unmanned Venus 13 spacecraft
early this morning after a four-month flight.
    ''The results of the new cosmic experiment will significantly widen
the information about the planet nearest to the Earth,'' Tass said.
The news agency said the probe had already sent back photographs and
scooped up a soil sample.
    The descent vehicle transmitted information from the surface of the
planet for 127 minutes today, according to Tass.
    Venus 13 was launched Oct. 30, 1981. Tass said Venus 14, launched on
Nov. 4, will reach the planet on Friday. Both craft were launched
from a satellite in earth orbit, Tass said.
    The Soviet Union started its Venus research program in 1961. A year
later, the U.S. space probe Mariner 2 passed by the planet.
    In 1967, a U.S. probe under the Mariner program and a Soviet probe
reached the planet within a few hours of each other.
    The Soviet probe transmitted information for about 75 minutes,
stopping after temperatures above 500 degrees Fahrenheit were recorded
at what was later determined to be about 20 miles from the planet's
surface. The U.S. probe, Mariner 5, passed about 6,000 miles from the
planet's surface.
    The U.S. launched two Pioneer spacecraft in December 1978, one which
went into orbit of the planet and the other which split into five
separate landing space probes.
    Tass said its current Venus probes will test the ground surface of
Venus in an effort to determine what elements are present on the hot,
cloud-covered planet.
    The mother ship, Venus 13, passed at a distance of about 22,320
miles, Tass said.
    The news agency said joint Soviet-French experiments were carried
out during the flight to Venus.
    
ap-ny-03-01 0925EST
***************

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

Date:  1 March 1982 1525-EST (Monday)
From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  Red vs blue spaceships
CC: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A

Fooey, there was a square root dropped in the beam angle calculations
of my last note.  The aberration in beam angle for a source emitting
a narrow beam in the direction of travel should have read:
                                              1 + v
Aparent beam angle = Source beam angle * SQRT(-----)
                                              1 - v
with v being recession velocity as fraction of c.

	This means that photon starships moving with the typical
quasar velocity of .82 c are only about 100 times as likely to
be seen accelerating away from us as decelerating towards us.
This is still in plausible agreement with observation since most
of the 200 quasars that have been identified were found by looking
for large redshift.   And if the data should rule out the narrow
blue beam possibility in future, we can always fall back on the
hypothesis that there are better ways to slow down than using the
big engines used for acceleration.

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

Date: 1 Mar 1982 1534-EST
From: YOUNG at DEC-MARLBORO
To: Space at MIT-AI
Subject: [DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>: for space digest -- Implacations of quasar findings]
Message-ID: <"MS5(2052)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11804306872.28.443.2974 at DEC-MARLBORO>

- - - - - - - Begin message from: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
Date: 1 Mar 1982 1316-EST
From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
To: young at MARKET
Reply-to: DYER-BENNET at KL2137
DTN: 231-4076
Mailstop: MR1-2/L14
Subject: for space digest -- Implacations of quasar findings
Message-ID: <"MS5(1715)+GLXLIB1(1033)" 11804281766.40.253.73939 at KL2137>

I've been wondering if the possible change in the status of quasars is
potentially damaging to large chunks of cosmological theory.  So has
a friend, and she took the trouble to dig up at least a little basis
for the worry.  The source, of course, is old and not terribly authoritative.

Anybody know anything more about the consequences of not-so-old much-closer
quasars on the rest of our understanding of the universe?

- - - - - - - Begin message from: DYER-BENNET.DEAN
Date: 1 Mar 1982 1305-EST
From: DYER-BENNET.DEAN
To: DYER-BENNET
Reply-to: DYER-BENNET.DEAN at KL2137
From-the-terminal-of: Pamela C. Dean
Subject: Quasars
Message-ID: <"MS5(1715)+GLXLIB1(1033)" 11804279832.29.526.32241 at KL2137>

     "The mere existence of quasars and BSO's ["blue stellar objects; i.e.,
blue stars as distant, luminous, and small as quasars, but lacking the
characteristic microwave emission, he says elsewhere -- pcd] was a heavy
and perhaps even fatal blow at the steady-state theory.  All of them are
very far away and were therefore formed many eons ago.  Since none can
be detected in our own neighborhood, it seems that whatever processes
formed them are not operative now... .  This, in turn, means that the
Universe was different in important ways, eons ago."  Isaac Asimov,
THE UNIVERSE, 1966 -- who knows what they've decided since then?

Anyway, he goes on to say that some astronomers believe that quasars
establish the big-bang theory, confirm theories of how long ago it
was, and even allow them to decide between the hyperbolic and pulsating
versions thereof.  Gosh, Professor, sounds important to me.
- - - - - - - End forwarded message

- - - - - - - End forwarded message

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

Date: Mon Mar  1 09:03:12 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
Subject: more quasars
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

Every now and then, I see some report that two quasars seem to be
moving away from each other with a net velocity > c.  Have these
observations ever been satisfactorily explained?

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

Date: Sun Feb 28 04:36:13 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley
Subject: Quasars
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

Well, if the ships have to be going away from us to be seen, why not?
After all, we're talking about type III technology here.  If they can build
these quasi-stellar ships, perhaps they can have whole fleets of them, and
they are constantly flitting about the galaxy.  Here's a calculation to
perform:  Take the energy output of a quasar, and convert that into energy
momentum for all the spectra they emit.  Work out how much momentum is being
thrown away from the quasar, and assuming it is all going one way, see how
much would be imparted to a ship the other way.  From that work out what
kind of delta-v we could be getting for ships of various masses.

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

Date: Mon Mar  1 17:41:45 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Soviet Space Probe
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


One of two recent probes launched by the USSR last year reached
and landed on Venus today, Tass said.  The second probe is due to
land Friday.  Reportedly, the probe sent back 127 minutes worth of
transmission and scooped up soil on its first day.  The mother ship
passed within 23,000 miles of the planet.

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

Date: Mon Mar  1 22:15:21 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Pioneer's Birthday
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Tomorrow, Pioneer 10, the first space probe to reach and pass
Jupiter, will celebrate is 10th birthday in space.  Launched
on 2, March, 1972, Pioneer successfully crossed the asteroid
belt and then Jupiter's radiation belt and is now traversing
out of the solar system, around 3.5 light hours away from Earth.
Since its launch, it has transmitted back invaluable data and
is now studying the boundaries of the sun's atmosphere, created
mostly by the solar wind.  It would also prove valuable in
finding a possible 10th planet, out beyond Pluto, if one
existed.  Radio contact with Pioneer is expected to last until
the craft is about 5 billion miles away, or thoughout the decade.

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

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

03-Mar-82  0603	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #120       
Date: 03 Mar 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #120    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 120

Today's Topics:
			 Quasar starships, contd.
			    Space in the News
  ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley's high-speed quasars
			     black hole query
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 March 1982 06:25-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Quasar starships, contd.
To: HPM at CMU-20C
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

One other obvious effect not mentionned in your (HPM's) message is:
Redshifting = time-expansion, blusshifting = time-contraction.
Thus a rocket blast lasting 1 year but redshifted or blueshifted
by a factor of 10 would seem to last 10 years or 0.1 year upon
receipt. So a redshifted rocket blast would seem to be a longlasting
quasar while a blueshifted rocket blast would seem to be a supernova
somewhat. Maybe some of the mysterious x-ray bursts are blueshifted
rockets? However I agree that it'd be stupid to blast your rocket
in the exact direction of some planet you want to survey for life.
Thus we'd see only far-away blasts that were aimed to miss a planet
destined to survey and just happened to be aimed at this distant
unknown planet called Earth that isn't even cataloged yet in
Encyclopedia Gallactica.

[HPM - right, except that at quasar velocity freq shift is only 3 or 4]

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

Date: 2 Mar 1982 0906-PST
Sender: ELITE at OFFICE-1
Subject: Space in the News
From: wmartin@office-3
To: space at MIT-AI
Cc: wmartin at OFFICE-3
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-1] 2-Mar-82 09:06:28.ELITE>

Just ran through an accumulation of back issues of Electronic
Engineering Times, and have the following items that may be of
interest to the list:

From the 1 Feb.  82 issue:

NASA recently published a document titled "Space Astronomy
Program Plan for the 1980's and 1990's" which discusses, among
other areas, plans for interstellar flight.  The Management
Operations Working Group For Space Astronomy (MOWGSA) states, "An
interstellar mission is envisioned in the 1990 to 2000 time
frame.  An actual unmanned interstellar encounter [THAT could
mean ALL sorts of things!  - WM] is projected for the latter part
of the 21st century."

"The following types of drive systems have been considered, and
deserve further study: ion electric propulsion, in which heavy
ions are created and then accelerated electrically; a
magnetohydrodynamic drive, in which a stream of propellant passes
through an electric current, creating self-induced magnetic
fields which interact with the current to provide acceleration;
solar sails, utilizing solar radiation pressure to provide a
boost out of the solar system; continuous thrust nuclear
propulsion and pulsed explosive nuclear propulsion."

[This document may well be of interest -- you may be able to get
a copy as an individual citizen just by writing NASA or your
congressperson and asking for it.  Or a public or university
library designated as a government documents depository may have
it.  WM]

Other items of interest in this same column (DC Circuit, by
Howard Roth):

A study done by the National Science Board (part of the NSF)
polled an unknown sample of people and came up with the findings
that 58% thought that "scientific discoveries make our lives
change too fast."  Out of 13 areas of science and technology on
which to spend tax dollars, health research was #1, but
"discovering new knowledge about man and nature" and "exploring
outer space" and "predicting and controlling weather" were #s 11,
12, and 13, respectively.  [The other choices were not listed.]

The other item in the column: The William Sword Co.  of
Princeton, NJ, is raising $1 billion to buy a space shuttle
through a subsidiary, Space Transportation Co.  The purpose is to
serve industrial requirements for materials processing and R&D.
This project could serve as a test case for involving large
private investment in space.

From the March 1 issue, same column: Soviet development of a
space-shuttle-type winged reuseable spacecraft was acknowledged
recently by the Soviet Emabassy in Washington.

The science and technology attach told an American Astronautical
Society meeting that launch of the system could occur in about
five years.

Another article from one issue in this range discussed Soviet
industrial activity in space -- the Soviets published a report on
the subject which discusses materials melting phenomena and
crystalization.  Also mentioned are "giant mirror reflectors
suspended in space that will help scatter the dark of the polar
night in the streets of northern cities and produce nearly
cost-free power."  [An SPS?  - WM]

Will Martin

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

Date: 2 Mar 1982 13:22 EST
From: Marshall.WBST at PARC-MAXC
Subject: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley's high-speed quasars
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 02 Mar 1982 0313-PST
To: Space at MIT-MC
cc: Marshall.WBST

Relativistic velocities don't add like slower velocities. If
two objects are moving in opposite directions relative to
a third observer at velocities v1 and v2 then the velocity
of one object relative to the other is

	v = (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1*v2)/(c^2))

The colliding beam experiments generally use particles
traveling more than 99% the speed of light so a naive
calculation would show they collide with a relative
velocity of 198% the speed of light. The above formula
gives 19800/19801 = 99.995% or still less than the speed of light.

Two quasars therefore never recede from each other at more than the speed of
light.

--Sidney Marshall

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

Date: Tue Mar  2 13:00:40 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley
Subject: black hole query
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

	What would be the effect of a beam of light making a close
approach to a black hole? Obviously, the light would be bent, but what
affect would the transition have on the lights wavelength outside
of the gravity well?

					murray at intelqa

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

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

04-Mar-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #121       
Date: 04 Mar 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #121    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 121

Today's Topics:
		     Soviet Lasers & Space Stations.
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #119
			     Far, far away...
			  Quasars as spacecraft
			     Quasar starships
			   Orbiting reflectors
			     Quasar starships
	     Doppler shift of light deflected by a black hole
		angle and energy shifts of moving objects
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 1982 0805-PST
Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL
Subject: Soviet Lasers & Space Stations.
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow
Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL
To: arms-d at MC, space at MC
Message-ID: <[SRI-CSL] 3-Mar-82 08:05:13.GEOFF>

	
a010  2230  02 Mar 82
AM-Soviet Lasers,390
Report Soviet Space Weapon Possible in 1983-88
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The Soviet Union may deploy laser weapons in space
during 1983-1988 - a period beginning next year - that could threaten
U.S. communications and spy satellites, according to a published
report of secret testimony by the Pentagon's top scientist.
    Richard D. DeLauer, undersecretary of defense, also said the Soviets
were expected to orbit a manned space complex capable of attacking
ground, sea and air targets from space about 1990, according to The
Army Times.
    The Pentagon has said for some time that the Soviets were ahead of
the United States in developing such weapons but DeLauer's estimate is
the first to disclose such an early date for deployment.
    The newspaper, a privately owned weekly, said in its edition dated
March 8 that DeLauer's statements were contained in a secret testimony
inadvertently read aloud by Rep. Ken Kramer, R-Colo., during a public
hearing last week of the House Armed Services Committee.
    ''Geosynchronous satellites may be threatened by a Soviet
space-based laser ... as early as 1983-1988,'' DeLauer was quoted was
saying in the testimony read by Kramer.
    Geosynchronous satellites always stay above the same spot on earth.
Such satellites are used primarily for communications.
    Kramer's reading was interrupted by a committee aide, but not before
DeLauer's words painted a grimmer prospect for the 1990s.
    ''We expect a large permanent manned orbital space complex to be
operational by about 1990,'' DeLauer's testimony was reported as
saying.
    ''If our understanding of Soviet space doctrine is correct ... (it)
will allow the Soviets to begin to place in orbit in the early 1990s
systems capable of effectively attacking ... ground, sea and air
targets from space.''
    Kramer was quoted as saying he found the threat to U.S. satellites
''most frightening.''
    The Army Times reporter, Walter Andrews, said Tuesday night DeLauer
asked the newspaper not to run the article. ''He said Kramer had made
a mistake and the story shouldn't be written,'' Andrews said.
    DeLauer has an unlisted telephone.
    A senior defense scientist, who said he was not familiar with
DeLauer's testimony, told the Associated Press Tuesday night he
believes that ''it would take more like 10 years for the Soviets to
deploy a space-based laser weapon.''
    Such a weapon has been moved out of Soviet laboratories into
advanced development but the Soviets have not tested it in space ''as
far as we have seen,'' the scientist said.
    ''The manned systems they have tested, such as Soyuz, have nothing
like that aboard,'' said the scientist, who spoke on condition he not
be identified.
    
ap-ny-03-03 0121EST
***************

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

Date: 3 Mar 1982 08:45 PST
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #119
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 03 Mar 1982 0302-PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Ciccarelli

Note regarding algebraic formulae presented to the group...

Some of us (e.g. at Xerox) use workstations on which the typefaces are
proportionally spaced, i.e. characters do not have a constant width.  Thus,
formulae displayed on multiple lines, e.g.:

           1+v
   SQRT[------]
           1-v

...often appear jumbled.  While I can discern the intent of the formula, it would
be better expressed as:

   SQRT[(1+v)/(1-v)]

...at least until all of us have the facilities to send drawings to each other.

/John

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

Date: 3 Mar 1982 1108-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Far, far away...
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: Space at MIT-AI
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 3-Mar-82 11:08:55.WMARTIN>

This must be a dumb question; nonetheless, I just can't seem to
answer it, and, since the quasar discussion arose, this seems an
appropriate time to ask it:

The whole idea of "looking back in time" when we view a quasar
(or whatever) at some far distance, like 10 billion light years,
because the light left it that long ago, has a confusing aspect
to it.  The thing we are now looking at wasn't THERE that long
ago!  That far back, it was back near or in the Big Bang, back at
THAT point from where it has travelled (look back over your
shoulder at the center of the universe...).

So we are looking at this quasar which we see out at the "edge"
of the universe, and say that the light from it took 10 billion
years to go from there to us here.  But, ten billion years ago,
the thing wasn't where we are looking at now, it was over that
way somewhere.

Can someone explain if we are talking about some relativistic
effect where we are seeing light curved around from that original
site, or has space itself changed during that time span, so that
the definition of "there" is different now from what it was then,
or do I have some basic misunderstanding of the whole business?

Will Martin

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

Date: 3 Mar 1982 1121-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Quasars as spacecraft
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-AI
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 3-Mar-82 11:21:58.WMARTIN>

I think I missed something here...  I thought one of the
characteristics of quasars is that they are emitting enormous
quantities of energy -- more energy than galaxies combined.  If
some culture has spacecraft that can emit such energy levels, why
would they bother GOING anywhere?  They could bring the entire
universe to them!

Or is the quasar energy-emission a calculated figure, assuming
that it is radiating in all directions with the same intensity we
see, and also assuming that it is at this theoretical enormous
distance, and the emission level we see could be accounted for by
a reasonable-scale spacecraft, directing all the energy of its
exhaust right at us by chance, and also rather close (tens or
100's of light-years)?  A flashlight at 10 feet being as bright
as a H-bomb at lunar orbit, or some such analogy...

Still, wouldn't this spacecraft have to be emitting at least as
much energy as a star to account for us detecting it at all?
(Even considering directed rather than omnidirectional radiated
energy.)  That still seems a bit much for a manufactured craft of
any sort...

Will Martin

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

Date: 3 Mar 1982 13:12 PST
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Quasar starships
To: HPM at CMU-20C
cc: REM at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, Wedekind.es


	That redshift-blueshift asymettry explanation is appealing. If 
quasars were spaceships in our galaxy, though, wouldn't we have seen 
(after 20 years and ~ 2,000 quasar-years of viewing) some of these:

	brightness changes on the order of hours, days, or months

	long-term brightness changes due to changes of heading

	increases in red shift due to acceleration

	greater quasar incidence (adjusted for dust clouds) in the plane 
		of the galaxy and in the direction of its center?

(I put this as a question 'cause that's what it is; maybe with some 
numbers here we can shoot down/support your theory).

					Jerry

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

Date: 3 Mar 1982 1351-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Orbiting reflectors
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-AI
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 3-Mar-82 13:51:39.WMARTIN>

That comment from the Soviet publication I quoted (issue #120)
about "giant mirror relectors" reminds me of a query I had meant
to make long ago.  For many years I have supposed that a sensible
use of space would be for cities to fund large reflectors
orbiting in such a location that they would reflect focussed
sunlight on the city at night in winter (or even during the day)
in order to keep the city warm enough to make snow melt as it
falls and keep any from accumulating.  One would think that the
snow-removal budget for a major northern city for a few years
could pay the cost of such a device, after space industry is
commonplace.

Is this a feasible idea?  Are such orbits possible for northern
cities, and would enough energy be reflected to do this?  For a
daylight operation, I envision the inhabitants seeing two suns,
and doubling the sunlight should, I think, do enough good to burn
through cloud cover and keep precipitation liquid.  Is this so?

What more immediate service to me of space science than to enable
me to retire my snow shovel?

Will Martin (St.Louis, MO)

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

Date:  3 Mar 1982 2122-EST
From: HPM at CMU-20C
Subject: Quasar starships
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: hm60 at CMU-10A, Wedekind.es at PARC-MAXC, rem at MIT-MC

Re:

1) Short term brightness changes in quasars

   Paragraph from "The Evolution of Quasars" by Maarten Schmidt
   and Francis Bello   May 1971 Scientific American
     "Unlike the light output of normal galaxies, the light output
      of some quasars has been observed to change significantly
      in a matter of days.  The only explanation is that some variable
      component, if not the entire quasar, may be not much larger than
      the solar system."  - One point for the starship hypothesis.

2) Long term brightness changes

   Chapter six of Burbidge and Burbidge, "Quasi-stellar Objects" Freeman 1967
   tells about studies of 70 years of old astronomical plates from the
   Harvard and Pulkova Observatories which show that the light from 3C 273
   varied by a factor of two over periods of years and that flashes of
   months or weeks occurred.  There is a possible 13 year period.

3) Increases in red shift with time

     Four years (63 - 67) of spectra of 3C 273 (above) detected no
     redshift change.
     I chose .001 g as a plausible acceleration because it allows a
     continuously accelerated 1000 light year trip in a total conversion
     photon rocket with a mass ratio under 10.  By comparison, at .01 g
     the mass ratio is nearly 200.  Over a 10 year period .001 g gives
     a velocity change of .01 c, from .82c to .83c at typical quasar
     velocity, a change in redshift from 2.18 to 2.28.  The quasar
     articles I've seen give redshifts to two decimal places, so a
     change of this magnitude should be detectable.  Any lower bounds
     on redshift change known?  A less than .01 change in ten years
     would imply an acceleration of less than 10e-5 g.
     Low values could be explained as being reasonable for something
     less than total conversion. (The spectral lines (H, C, Mg) of
     quasars show that there is a mix of stuff there).  A detected
     increase in redshift would be very strong evidence for a rocket,
     but lack of such would be a strong negative indication.  Any data?

4) Density correlation with the galactic disk

     The stellar neighborhood is pretty isotropic in a thousand lightyear
     sphere, and farther away they would be harder to see.  Also, most quasar
     searches have been made out of the galactic plane, because the
     in-plane sky is so cluttered.  A quasar set against a background
     of a galactic dust cloud would, of course, be wonderful evidence
     of them being nearby.    But only 200 have been found so far, so the
     evidence is not yet in.  The Feb 82  Osmer Sci. Am. article statement
     that there seems to be no correlation between redshift and brightness
     is positive evidence.
     Perhaps related, from the same article: "The spectra of quasars are
     quite unlike the spectra of all other astronomical objects ...
     The strongest feature is the Lyman-alpha line of atomic hydrogen ...
     ... in many instances the lines are wide, an indication that
     some of the gas surrounding the quasar is moving at velocities as
     high as [ 0.1 c ].  The physical conditions deduced from the various
     lines show that the gas is hotter than the gas in normal nebulas ..."

5) Power output of a quasar-bright starship (other message)

	Yes, the huge energy output is entirely predicated on them
     being at the edge of the visible universe.  Their power output
     drops by inverse square law.  If they are at 10e10 light years,
     their output (if isotropic) is that of 10e13 stars.  
     	If they are only 1000 lightyears distant and isotropic the
     output is one tenth that of a star.
     	If the power output is concentrated into a one degree of
     divergence beam, one millionth of a stellar output suffices.
     This is 10e27 ergs per second.
        If the power for this last case is provided by total
     conversion, it means conversion of 1000 kg, or 1 tonne, of
     fuel per second -  Certainly awesome by our standards, but
     much smaller than astronomical in scale, and probably not
     absurd for a mature starship technology.
        Assuming, as before, a 1000 light year trip and 10 mass ratio,
     thus .001 g  acceleration we  can calculate that the mass of a
     typical quasarship to be 10^11 tonnes, 100 billion tonnes.
     (By comparison, the earth masses 10^22 tonnes.)  If the ship
     has the density of water, it might be contained in a sphere
     10 kilometers in diameter.  (Sounds just right to me!)
     	Because of the small fraction of such ships which would
     have their narrow beams aimed at us, the density of visible
     quasars would imply that there are maybe 100 billion of these
     cuties within a few thousand light years.  Could be big
     trouble later if they're not very friendly.
-------

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

Date: 4 March 1982 02:34-EST
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Doppler shift of light deflected by a black hole
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     In the rest frame of the black hole, there is no Doppler shift.

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

Date: 4 March 1982 02:27-EST
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: angle and energy shifts of moving objects
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     Let K be the blueshift factor of an approaching object.  Then the
angular size of the approaching object is reduced by a factor 1/K, and
the solid angle is reduced by a factor 1/K^2.  I don't know an obvious
proof of this; you can work out the Lorentz transformation.  However,
the energy per photon is increased by factor K (the Doppler shift), and
the number of recieved photons per unit time increases by factor K
(again a sort of Doppler shift), so the total received power increases
by a factor K^2.  If the object subtends an observable nonzero solid angle,
i.e. is not a point source, the its brightness (Watt/stearadian) increases
by a factor of K^4.  For this reason I would expect a blue shifted quasar
to be more readily detected than a similar red shifted one.

     The above results apply regardless of the angle of approach, as
long as K is the blueshift factor.

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

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

05-Mar-82  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #122       
Date: 05 Mar 1982 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #122    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:
			      Back to basic?
			 Quasar Spaceship Theory
		  Re: Melting snow with orbiting mirrors
			 Re: Orbiting reflectors
			 Re: Quasar speculations
			       Shuttle News
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 March 1982 07:26-EST
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at MIT-MC>
Subject: Back to basic?
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Force all us humans to read machine-format formulae for the sake of
our friends at Xerox who seem to lack fixed-width fonts?  Seems to be
a case of blindly embracing new technology while throwing away the
advantages of the old.  There's a lot of fixed-width formated text in
this world, so I always use a single fixed-width font for reading (and
writing) mail.  I don't use my integral sign key either, and thus we
can communicate both ways.

But I don't want to start a discussion about message-formatting
technology (at least, not in this forum).  I do want to point out that
it is an imposition to expect the rest of the world to read
fortran-gubble with naked eyeball.

                  -- ((B*o-b)/(K*e/(r+n-(log(s)))

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

Date:  4 Mar 1982 0736-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Quasar Spaceship Theory
To: space at MIT-MC

This theory is not very consistent with the evidence.

(1) Shifts in positions of quasars.

    If quasars are moving at near c, and are only a few thousand parsecs
away, shouldn't we see them move?  Remember, we can determine their 
positions to within very close limits by using very long baseline
interferometry.

(2) Observable effects of such spaceships

    If the ships produce lots of high velocity gas they should have 
dramatic effects on the interstellar medium.  We should see features 
that look like long jets of very hot gas, radiating X-rays and such.
We would know if such features existed within a few thousand light years:
no such effects have been detected.
  
    If there are 10^11 quasar spaceships within a few thousand light
years their density comes out to one spaceship per ~10 cubic light
years.  If one were within, say, 20 light years it shouldn't be hard
to spot, even if the beam is directed away from us.

(3) Other details

    The gravitational lens is inexplicable unless qusars are at
cosmological distances.  Quasars often have a two lobed structure.
This structure is easy to explain if the quasar is a galaxy, but not
if it is a spaceship.  If quasars are spaceships they should be
visible in other galaxies, but they are not.
-------

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

Date: 4 Mar 1982 12:27 PST
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Melting snow with orbiting mirrors
In-reply-to: WMartin's suggestion in V2 #121
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Ciccarelli

You're toying with weather modification on a LARGE SCALE, there!  The "heat
bubble" of cities already has an effect on surrounding territory; this sort of thing
could have all sorts of ramifications on downwind vegetation (crops, trees), for
instance.  Heat and wind patterns are implicated in desert formation as well!

This is of an entirely different class from the Soviet's suggestion of providing
city lighting with a spaceborne mirror; that can be done with far less intensity
(and thus heat input to the biosphere).

Both of these projects also raise substantial legal and freedom-of-choice issues. 
Legislating freeway construction is one thing; the creation of a (visual) second
sun or an omnipresent "Night-light" is quite another.

Keep your snow shovel, Will...
/John

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

Date: 4 Mar 1982 14:04 PST
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Orbiting reflectors
In-reply-to: WMARTIN's message of 3 Mar 1982 1351-PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

About Will Martin's reflector question: 

In order to double the solar radiation, the mirror would have to intercept the
same amount of sun's radiation as the city does, and therefore be the same size
as the city.  For any continuity of service, it would have to placed in geosync
orbit, would have to rotate once every two days because the sun's direction is
changing as seen from geosync, and it would have to be reflective on both
sides.  As the mirror approached edge-on every noon, the output would drop off
substantially for a few hours.  Very far northern cities would have a permanent
similar problem because the city lies inclined.  An hour or so of eclipse would
occur around midnight during fall and spring.  

A 20 mile mirror would appear, at geosync distance, ten times smaller than the
sun, but 100 times brighter per unit area (if the full output is focussed on 20
miles of earth).  This would burn a few photographers shutters and may cause
instantaneous blindness if viewed.  It's shadow would be spread out over 200
miles, and be hardly noticeable, and would move across almost half the equator
every mid-day.  The size of the light spot where it hit the earth would also
spread out to 200 miles, unless the mirror were optically shaped to focus the
light.  In fact, I don't see how to prevent spread without a compound optical
system (two or more mirrors that demagnify the image of the sun as projected
onto the earth).  This brings up problems of maintaining precise shape of an
object miles across.  

Low orbit would limit the spread problem to a few miles, but then the shadow
would be objectionable, the mirror would have to rotate fast and irregularly, and
a given city could only get light for several minutes out of every revolution (1.5
hours).  Also, no night-time operation, as the mirror would be in shadow.  

It might still be effective if the mirror gave as little as 10% of sunlight, so you
can scale the mirror down by sqrt(10) to get a sort of lower limit.  Or you could
scale up the mirror until it was comparable to the spread size and get whole
states rather than cities.  Any way you do it, the mirror is a pretty sizable task.  

/Don Lynn

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

Date: Tue Mar  2 14:31:47 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Quasar speculations
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


If quasars are red shifted because they are so far way, just how old are
they estimated to be?  One one hand, they are at the outer fringe of the
universe, and thus would be old since they were the first things to be
thrown away from the bang, but on the other hand, the light we see left
them many billion years ago.  So just how old is what we see?

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

Date: Wed Mar  3 07:21:27 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle News
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


At 1800 EST yesterday, a ``call to stations'' went out, signaling the
commencement of the loading of toxic fuels into the shuttle's orbital
maneuvering system and reaction control system.  These guide the shuttle's
pitch and yaw during flight.  Testing and preparations on systems have
gone on without trouble, and actual loading is scheduled to begin at
midnight tonight.

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

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

06-Mar-82  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #123       
Date: 06 Mar 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #123    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 123

Today's Topics:
	       Gravity-Gradient Stabilization of Satellites
			 the distance of quasars
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #122
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #121
		     A "nearest neighbor" calculation
			     quasar redshifts
			       FTL Quasars
			   superluminal quasars
		       Reply To FUNCTIONAL INFINITY
			 Quasar Spaceship Theory
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed Mar  3 13:14:21 1982
From:     Kieran Carroll
Subject:  Gravity-Gradient Stabilization of Satellites


   With reference to CARLF@MIT-AI's message (issue 113), there is at least
one reason to use masses on the ends of ropes (or wires, more likely)
to stabilize an orbiting satellite by taking advantage of a gravity-gradient.
This is that you want to avoid deploying any excess structural area
with the stabilization system, since excess area means excess reflection
of solar radiation, which means excess solar-pressure on the structure.
This pressure will increase the disturbance forces acting on the
satellite, tending to modify its orbit (although the effect may cancel
out over a one-year period), which causes an increase in the station-keeping
activity required, and hence the amount of fuel burned by the station-
keeping thrusters--bad news!
   A second effect of the solar pressure acting on the wires would be to
bend their tips away from the sun (much like a slender, flexible mast
swaying in a breeze), since ideal wires have no rigidity in the transverse
direction. This could also be undesirable.
   True, if you want to deploy ANY mass to stabilize the satellite,
that mass will have some cross-sectional area, and hence will be subject
to these solar pressures. However, a sphere of mass M has a much smaller
surface area than a long, thin wire of mass M; the area of the counter-
weight is reduced by concentrating it into a compact shape.
   Of course, the whole idea of the system is to deploy a mass at some
large distance from the satellite, in order to take advantage of the
local gravity-gradient. Hence there is a good reason to put the mass
on the end of a long wire; however, a lumped-mass on the end of a wire
would still be better than a wire alone (I'm pretty sure...).
The length of the wire used, and the size of lumped-mass used, could be
calculated so as to optimize the ratio (stabilizing effect)/(total system
mass), depending on the strength of the local solar radiation, the
amount of stabilizing torque required, the reflectivity of the wire and the
lumped-mass, and various other things. (Spacecraft engineers are
VERY weight-conscious, and just LOVE to optimize systems with respect to
weight) 

   I'm sorry for flogging what may already be a dead horse, but by the 
time the digest gets from arpanet to usenet to utzoo, the messages
are rather old.
                                       Kieran A. Carroll

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

Date: Friday, 5 March 1982  08:04-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
To: WMartin at Office-3
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL
Subject: the distance of quasars

	We have been running away from the light source (in that
source's reference frame) for 10 billion years.  It took a while for
the photons to overtake us.  Put differently, the object's proximity
to us at "big bang" time is partially a relativistic compression.

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

Date: 5 Mar 1982 08:40 PST
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #122
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 05 Mar 1982 0303-PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Ciccarelli

Aargh.  I concede.  Fixed-width it will be!  However, watch the use of tabs...
[End of discussion on formatting; please forgive the use of the Digest...]

-----

Question for Paul Dietz:  In V2# 122, under "other details", you said,

   "If quasars are spaceships they should be visible in other galaxies, BUT THEY
ARE NOT." (Emphasis mine)

-- Please elaborate (?)

/John

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

Date:  5 March 1982 11:59 est
From:  York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York)
Subject:  Re: SPACE Digest V2 #121
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 4 March 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson

Does anyone have any details on what STS-3 is supposed to accomplish?
Are there any new and exciting gadgets to be tested? Are they going to
use the arm again? Any info would be appreciated.

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

Date: 5 Mar 1982 10:12 PST
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: A "nearest neighbor" calculation
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Wedekind.es

	Here's an interesting attempt to calculate the average distance 
between technical civilizations in our part of the galaxy. A bit long, but 
it's only algebra and even if you think it's balderdash you might enjoy 
deciding just what parts you disagree with. 

	It comes from "Time and the Space Traveller" by L. Marder (his 
discussion is based on S. von Hoerner's  Dec '61  article in Science).

	First, a couple of "typicality" assumptions:

	1) Life and intelligence develop everywhere by the same rules
	   of natural selection given the proper surroundings and time.

	2) The average intelligent civilization will take about as long
	   as ours did to reach our current level of science, technology
	   and desire for interstellar communication.

	Not certain, but plausible. Now, for the local part of our galaxy, 
name these avg quantities:

	T0 = time from the birth of a star to develop a technical civilization
	T  = age of oldest stars
	V0 = fraction of stars which are "favorable", i.e. possess planets 
		capable of supporting life
	V   = fraction of stars which at present have a tech civilization
	L   = longetivity of the civilization after the technical stage is 
		reached, i.e. until destruction or degeneration.

	Von Hoerner considers 5 cases of longetivity limitation:

	1) Complete destruction of life
	2) Destruction of higher forms only
	3) Physical or mental degeneration and decay
	4) Loss of interest in science and technology
	5) No limitation.

	Let P1,..,P5 and L1,..,L5 be the probability and longetivity of the
respective fates (so that L5 = T - T0). Then the average longetivity is

		L = P1*L1 + ... + P5*L5,

and if each favorable star supports only one civilization in its lifetime 
then a fraction L/T of them will do so at any given time,

		V = V0*L/T  

(this assumes that star formation is a fairly constant phenomenon, so that 
star ages are evenly distributed up to the maximum value T). Now if L2 
and L3 are short enough it's worth counting the possibility that a second
civilization develops on the same planet in cases 2) or 3). This argument 
applied recursively changes the right hand side of the last equation to

		V = V0*L*Q/T, 

with

		Q = 1 + (P2+P3) + (P2+P3)^2 + ...  = 1/(1-(P2+P3)).

	Finally, if we call 

	D = mean distance betwixt neighboring technical civilizations, &
	D0 = mean dist between neighboring stars of ALL kinds,

then 
		D = D0/V^(1/3),

that is, D depends inversely on V's cube root. Now von Hoerner tries to 
assign values which people won't laugh at. For the Pi and Li (notice P2):

      Case           Est. range for Li       Adopted Li       Adopted Pi

1) Complete              0 - 200                100                 .05
 destruction
2) Higher                0 - 50                  30                  .6
 life only
3) Degeneration      10^4 - 10^5            3 X 10^4             .15
4) Loss of int         10^3 - 10^5             10^4                 .2
5) No limit             >= (T - T0)           T - T0                0

so that

	L = avg longetivity of 6500 years, Q = recurrence factor of 4.

He also sets

	T = star lifetime = 10^10 years, and
	D0 = neighbor dist = 7.5 light yrs.


Finally let's estimate V0, the fraction of stars with planets capable of 
supporting life. According to assumption 1) we can base this estimate 
solely on the existence and physical characteristics (temperature, etc) of 
the planets & stars themselves - say, for argument's sake,

	V0 = .01.

(von Hoerner used .1 for V0; we're being more conservative). We get

	V = 2.6 X 10^-8,

or one star in 40 million having a technical civilization at any given 
time, and

	D = 2500 light years  

for the expected distance to the nearest. Big changes in the Pi or in V0 
don't change D too much, because of the cube root dependence of D 
on V.  If you're a real pessimist, for instance, and set

	V0 = .0001,

you get

	D = 12000 light years.

	(Woops - the assumed value for D0 is not valid for a sphere of 
12000 ly radius centered on Sol - well, you get the idea). In either of these 
cases seperate calculations suggest that the most likely "technical age" of 
the first civilation encountered is many thousands of years. So we'd better 
be polite!


						Jerry					

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

Date: Thu Mar  4 19:50:33 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: quasar redshifts
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


The Doppler-but-not-distant explanation of quasars WAS taken seriously
at one point, because it is possible to explain the absence of blueshifts,
small redshifts, etc. if the quasars are high-velocity objects expelled
by the core of our own galaxy.  This gives them a strong reason to all
be pointing away from us:  we are part of the structure that launched
them.  This does assume that they were launched in a particular
epoch some time ago and are no longer being launched (or that some
clever aspect of the launch process or the quasars themselves keeps
us from seeing more recent launches).

Maybe the quasars are trying to tell us something:  perhaps expulsion
of quasars is the first sign of an exploding galactic core...

Of course, this theory does not sit well with several things found more
recently.  There are an awful LOT of the damn things.  There is no
other sign of the spectacular event that expelled them.  Some of the
quasars found after serious searches started have redshifts indicating
velocities of 0.9c+, which is hard to explain.  We don't seem them
around other galaxies, and assuming that ours is unique is rather ad hoc.
And finally, this theory cannot explain why some otherwise-typical-looking
quasars definitely ARE far away.  Oh well...

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

Date: Thu Mar  4 18:14:28 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: FTL Quasars
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


	Hmm.  Sounds interesting.  Is it possible that the value of c is
related in some way to the gravitational constant - or, put more formally,
to the global curvature of space?
	If it is, then an explanation for the Faster-Than-Light quasars
is immediate:  It is known that the gravitational constant is decreasing
over time (discovered in 1980).  If we take the standard cosmological view
of quasars, then they are inhabitants of the early universe, a time when 
according to current theory G had a much higher value than now.  If it
developed that c was directly related to G, then c would be correspondingly
higher at that time:  thus, we have quasars moving at speed greater than
300,000 kps but less than the then-current value of c.
	Notice how nicely this hypothesis fits with special relativity;
we need not hypothesize faster-than-light objects.
	However, if true, then c (since this is, at bottom, just the speed
of a little blue photon) should be variable with local (as well as global)
spacetime curvature.  Presumably, then, relativistic dilations experienced
at some velocity in curved spacetime would be different from those 
experienced in flat spacetime, though I don't know how you'd do an experiment
to determine it.
	This opens up interesting possibilities for an interstellar drive;
if we could transport a portable black hole with an interstellar ship, we
could, presumably, travle at much higher velocities than we could in
flat spacetime.
                                               Cheers,
                                                   Rick.

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

Date: Wed Mar  3 19:56:10 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!rabbit!npois!harpo!chico!duke!unc!dopey.smb
       at Berkeley
Subject: superluminal quasars
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Here's the basis for my question about quasars moving faster than light,
from the August 22, 1981 issue of Science News:

	Just a few months ago, only four quasars with components moving
	apart at apparent velocities faster than the speed of light had
	been identified.  Now... there are six.

	... Each of the six has at least one pair of components
	separating at velocities that, from our vantage point, appear to
	be faster than light.  The apparent expansion velocities are all
	in the range of 3 to 10 times the speed of light, with the exact
	numbers depending on which assumed value of the Hubble
	constant... is used.

	... When astronomers refer to "superluminal expansion", they
	don't necessarily mean the components involved actually are
	separating from each other at faster than the speed of light.
	Built into the phrase... is the idea ... "as it appears from
	earth."  The leading explanation... calls on a geometric
	situation in which a relativistic jet from the quasar is moving
	out from the core at a small angle to our line of sight to the
	core.  During any given period since light left the jet on its
	route towards us, the jet itself has moved almost the same
	distance toward us as well.  The light from its second position
	therefore reaches us only a short time after the light from its
	first position.

	... Most astronomers assume this to be what is responsible for
	the measurements of superluminal expansions, although there is
	plenty of uneasiness over the requirement of having the fairly
	special line-of-sight orientation....  Six of twelve, or half,
	the appropriately analyzed quasars have shown it, a troublingly
	high frequency.  However, the twelve are not random samples,
	but highly selective samples, and that might help explain away
	the difficulty.

Now -- does anyone have any later information on this?  (I note in
passing that we seem to have yet another situation where special
alignments are involved, as in the red shift/blue shift discussion.)

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

Date: Wed Mar  3 10:44:35 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!mhtsa!ihnss!houxi!hocsb!bsm at Berkeley
Subject: Reply To FUNCTIONAL INFINITY
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Several years ago (nowhere near infinity) I was discussing a similar
idea with a friend. We never thought to consider the vector
implications, thus our idea diverged somewhat from yours.
This infinity was a general range of values (or distances)
that could not be represented by our usual numerical system.
It might be visualized as moving the decimal point to the
left by some reference distance (10 ** 1000), the result
being that all usual numbers now (almost) equal zero and
all the infinity numbers are now scaled down to the usual
numbers. This visualization is poor because these numbers
of infinity can still be represented by the usual number
system.
	It would be a significant step if someone could
develop a math system for dealing with such numbers. I
beleive this has already been done by Isaac Newton around
1675 and possibly Archimedes before Christ. Calculus
always deals with numbers that are to small to be represented
by the usual numerical system, these numbers being called
DELTA's. In many Calculus derivations, reciprocals of
Delta's arise and must be eliminated by inversion.
These reciprocals of Delta's are FUNCTIONAL INFINITIES.
Unfortunately, the Calculus always eliminates them to
obtain a result. What is needed is a way of directly
dealing with them, or treating them as "ANTI-DELTA's".
(This would be distinct from Antiderivative or Integral)
L'Hopital's Rule is a nice start, but it only evaluates
points on a function, and what we need are functions
whose values are infinite everywhere.
	I enjoyed your vector description of infinity, but
I disagree on a major concept. If the infinite position was
at a distance relatively infinite from all other positions.
, then there would be only one direction. This would be
from the infinite position toward all the other positions.
Although this puts a kink in some of your observations, it
could have some astounding uses. By introducing infinity to
a 3 dimensional system, it reduces the system to one dimension.
 ......but maybe this observation is incorrect......?
	I would appreciate any re-replies or additional
information. Sorry for being so wordy.
		yours till the end of time,
		Bryan Moffitt

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

Date: 5 March 1982 19:19-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Quasar Spaceship Theory
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I'm not so sure spaceships in other galaxies would be visible (ignoring
the possibility that ours is the first, that we're here because we were
seeded by advanced life in the one middling-sized galaxy that just happened
to be first, and thus the observation bias that our galaxy seems different
from all others in that it has advanced life).
Remember they are quite faint here, needing large telescopes, and there
are still more on the limits of our telescope's power we won't see until the
large space telescope is put up. If the ones we're seeing are uniformly
distributed in space, rather than along the gallactic plane, because we can't
see any beyond 100 or maybe 1000 light years, then surely we can't see
even ones ten or a hundred times bigger in other galaxies that are
millions of light years away.

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

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

07-Mar-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #124       
Date: 07 Mar 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #124    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
			       Shuttle News
			       Shuttle News
			  Constancy of c and G.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu Mar  4 18:02:26 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle News
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Although 8 hours behind schedule, at 0800 EST today, fueling
of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine fuels commenced, and
have been running since then with no problems.  The five
day operation was delayed twice, once by a balky pump and
a snag in setting up service lines.  Officials say it
will pose no delay to the launch date, now set at 22 March.

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

Date: Fri Mar  5 07:26:11 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle News
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Although started 8 hours behind schedule, loading of toxic propellants
into the shuttle was ahead of schedule as of early this morning.  Time
was made up and then some by workers in safety suits and all is proceeding
well.

In other space news, Intelsat V-D was launched aboard an Atlas-Centaur
booster last night.  Put into elliptical orbit, it will be placed into
its final orbit on Sunday.

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

Date: 6 March 1982 23:21-EST
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Constancy of c and G.
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     The speed of light, c, and gravitational constant, G, are constant
in the general theory of relativity.  A variable c would imply either
a preferred coordinate system with respect to which an absolute velocity
could be measured, or a medium (the ether) whose elastic vibrations
constitute electromagnetic radiation.  The conjecture (not established
fact) of a variable G arises as follows.  An electron and proton are
electrically attracted about 10^40 times stronger than they are
gravitationally attracted.  Also, the radius of the known universe
is about 10^40 times the radius of a proton.  Dirac suggested that so
large a number as 10^40 could not occur by coincidence, and that perhaps
G scales inversely with the radius of the universe.  This has some
consequences for celestial mechanics and geophysics, and I vaguely
seem to remember that the observations are not consistent with the
dG/dt required by the Hubble constant.  More elaborate conjectures
attempt to incorporate the estimate that the number of protons in the
known universe is about (10^40)^2.  Unlike the case of a variable c,
I believe it is possible to concoct a theory with variable G without
violating either experimental observation or strongly believed basic
principles.

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

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

08-Mar-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #125       
Date: 08 Mar 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #125    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:
				Variable C
		      Trip to watch Shuttle landing
			       Shuttle News
		    A "nearest neighbor" calculation  
				Re: STS-3
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 07 Mar 1982 0326-PST
From: JPM at SU-AI
Subject: Variable C
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Our galaxy is moving with a definite velocity with respect to the background
radiation which most believe to be from the Big Bang.  This movement would
seem to indicate that there IS a preferred reference frame in which to
measure velocity, that is the one in which there is no relative motion
with respect to the "location" of the Big Bang.  Has anyone done any
work along these lines, especially involving the consequences for
the various theories of realitivity?

Jim

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

Date: 7 March 1982 15:43-EST
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Trip to watch Shuttle landing
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     I hope to have the time to drive (from the Stanford area) to 
Edwards AFB to watch the Shuttle landing.  Following this, I plan to
hike and sightsee in the Death Valley, Saline Valley, Eureaka Valley
area.  This region is described in the Sierra Club Guidebook "Hiking the
Great Basin".  Perhaps also an easy snowshoe hike in the Eastern Sierra.
If interested in carpooling, contact me: home 415-948-9072,
work 415-858-2250 x217, or ES@MIT-MC.

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

Date: Sun Mar  7 20:30:29 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle News
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

At around midnight Saturday, fueling of nitrogen tetroxide and
hydrazine propellants into the shuttle's orbital maneuvering
system and reaction control system was completed without a hitch.
The next step on the line to a 22 March launch is the pressurization
of helium tanks inside the orbital maneuvering pod.  This week,
workers will begin to prepare pad 39A for the countdown and
launch.

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

Date: 07 Mar 1982 2121-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: A "nearest neighbor" calculation  
To:   space at MIT-MC
CC:   Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC

This is an interesting calculation.  I think it is a cop out, however, to
assume that the probability of a very long lived race is zero.  It is also
ridiculous to assume a life time as the same as that of a star.  Clearly a
race that survives that long could outlive its original solar system.
It seems extremely likely that a few civilizations would have matured 
sufficiently to survive forever.  It is impossible to evaluate the likelihood
of losing interest in technology, but who knows?

I'm afraid that the problem with these numbers is that V0 is much smaller
than .01.  Perhaps 1e-4 to 1e-6 would be more conservative.  Still the
inverse cube root dependence means this isn't too important an effect.

We still have the question then: "where is everybody?".  I think we're in
a "game preserve".
	Ted Anderson

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

Date:  7-Mar-82 22:24:39 PST (Sunday)
From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: STS-3
To: York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York)
cc: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, Hamilton

See (as usual) Aviation Week (1 March) for a detailed mission summary.
The two major experiments are (1) a continuation of electrophoresis work
begun on SkyLab (for concentration of various biological substances) and
(2) casting large latex spheres, which are of interest for such
applications as delivering medication to specific sites in the body.
These experiments will be conducted during a couple days of "low gravity"
(minimal thruster firing).  Other activities during the 8-day mission
include thermal stress testing (making sure the payload bay doors still
work when they move from extreme cold (shadow) into extended periods of
sunlight), and testing passive cooling (putting the shuttle into a slow
roll to minimize demand on heating and cooling systems).

--Bruce

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

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

09-Mar-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #126       
Date: 09 Mar 1982 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #126    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 126

Today's Topics:
				 Quasars
				  STS-3
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #125
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri Mar  5 19:08:19 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!donald at Berkeley
Subject: Quasars
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


The idea that quasars are the exhausts of spaceships smacks faintly of
the ridiculous (excuse me for being a pro-establishment stuffed shirt).
Immediately obvious questions arise:
  -  If the exhaust of these hypothetical is pure photons, then perhaps
     one would observe these enormous redshifts, but then the question
     of how the spectral lines by which these redshifts are measured got
     there!  It seems to me that a pure photon exhaust (via a an enormous
     galaxy-sized laser) would *not* contain spectral lines by which a
     redshift may be detected.
     On the other hand, if these spaceships were shooting out very energetic
     matter as reaction mass, then we would not observe redshifts because
     the reaction mass (which is emitting the light) would be racing to-
     wards us, cancelling the forward velocity of the spaceship.
  -  There must me quite a few of these civilizations have a strong dislike
     of via lactea to be shootin' away from us all around the visible
     celestial sphere.


Re: Superluminal Quasars.

There is nothing wrong with quasars apparently receding from each other
at superluminal velocities as measured by *us*.  However, in their own
frame of reference each quasar must see the other as traveling at a speed
less than C.

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

Date:  8 March 1982 22:07 est
From:  Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  STS-3
To:  York.m at MIT-MULTICS, Space at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 6 March 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson

Far from the most significant mission, but the onlY one I know personally
of, is a benchmark "get-away special" package developed by Jim Barrowman.
It is a test "special" designed to what engineers THINK are the necessary
tolerances, requirements, environmental specifications, etc. that all future
get-away specials will be required to adhere to.  If this one fails to work
for one reason or another, they can change the specifications as necessary
before destroying some poor experimenter's equipment in a real get-away special.

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

Date:  9 March 1982 04:25 est
From:  JSLove at MIT-MULTICS (J. Spencer Love)
Subject:  Re: SPACE Digest V2 #125
Sender:  JSLove.PDO at MIT-MULTICS
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc:  JSLove.PDO at MIT-MULTICS
In-Reply-To:  Message of 8 March 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson

I recall seeing an explanation for why we could NOT detect a velocity
relative to the radiation from the Big Bang.  It had something to do
with where the radiation was supposed to be coming from (the outermost
fringes of the universe), and is only 3 degrees Kelvin because it is
hugely red-shifted.  The argument called on relativity (I think general,
but perhaps special is sufficient) to explain why the radiation from all
directions looks just the same.

Therefore, I was surprised to see the claim in a recent digest that such
an anisotropy could be detected.  Do you know something I don't know
(sources, PLEASE, and sorry I can't do the same) or are you committing
the sin of the French philosophers (and Aristotle) of telling us how you
think things should be instead of how they are?
				-- Spencer

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

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

10-Mar-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #127       
Date: 10 Mar 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #127    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:
				Variable C
			  gravitaion effect on C
			     quasar redshifts
			   Background Radiation
		  Sodium heat engine - SPS application?
		      life is dangerous on planets!
			   Superluminal quasars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 09 Mar 1982 0540-PST
From: JPM at SU-AI
Subject: Variable C
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I saw the calculations in either a Science News or Scientific American article
several years ago.  I am sure someone can be more specific.

Basically the argument goes as follows.  The background radiation is so
low because the frontier of the universe is expanding, implying a massive
redshift of all energies from the big bang.  But this redshift is NOT equal
in all directions.  Rather, some directions are decidedly "hotter" than
others.  The pattern is such to suggest that we are moving at about 300 mps
towards the "hot" spot.  ie that there is a frame of reference in which we
are moving which, if any frame of reference can, is an "absolute" frame
of reference.

As to claims that "there are no absolute frames of reference because all
physical laws are invariant," bull.  We do NOT know that physical laws
are invariant.  We know that SOME physical laws are invariant for a LOCAL
area of space at a CERTAIN period of time.  We have not even shown that
EM force is indeed inverse square over large distances (all experiments
have been over short distances that have any reasonable degree of accuracy).
It SHOULD be inverse square, and I would bet on it, but it is a DEDUCTION,
not a directly observed fact (ie one that depends only upon the correctness
of a simple detection mechanism).

We don't know half of what we do know.  (yes, that is recursive)

Jim

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

Date: Mon Mar  8 12:33:32 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley
Subject: gravitaion effect on C
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

        Several years ago, scientists observed the effect the sun's gravity
had  on  a  radio  beam from a distant sattelite (Pioneer I believe).  They
found that the radio beams velocity changed as the radio beam came near the
sun.  However,  as  I  remember,  the  light  went  slower in the increased
gravity field, not faster.  Oh well, there goes the black hole space ships.

					murray at intelqa

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

Date: Mon Mar  8 12:26:53 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley
Subject: quasar redshifts
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

	    What would be the effect of a beam of light making a close
    approach to a black hole? Obviously, the light would be bent, but what
    affect would the transition have on the lights wavelength outside
    of the gravity well?

					    murray at intelqa

    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>

    Assuming no particle event happens (such as absorbption and
    re-radiation from an electron), the light is blueshifted
    as it enters and redshifted as it leaves, to end up with
    exactly the same wavelength as it started with at the same distance.
    If the blackhole is moving it's possible some net momemtum transfer might
    occur, creating a net redshift or blueshift. ES might know better.

	Assuming the black hole is spinning or otherwise in motion, would
this lend some credence to Arp's theory of close quasers? For example:

Light leaves a nearby ( but hidden from direct view) quaser, bends around
a black hole and is redshifted in the process. The light then proceeds
into some astronomers telescope where he declares that quasar is
X light years away because its light is redshifted by a factor of Y.

Admittedly, this theory is full of holes (in particular, where are
the blue-shifted quasars) but it does seem to answer the question
as to how you can have nearby redshifted quasars. Comments,
speculation?

					murray at intelqa

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

Date:  9 Mar 1982 0736-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Background Radiation
To: space at MIT-MC, JSLove.PDO at MIT-MULTICS

The reason we see an anisotropy in the background radiation is (they think)
because our galaxy is being drawn towards the center of a supercluster
of galaxies, roughly in the direction of the virgo cluster.  

The background radiation does not provide a prefered reference frame,
because it doesn't provide ANY well defined reference frame.  It expands
along with the rest of the universe, so the rest velocity defined by
the radiation several billion light years away is going to be a good 
fraction of c different from what it is here.

On another topic, I read an interesting article in a recent Science
about a new theory on the origin of the universe.  This theory postulates
that our universe is embedded in a larger space that is called a
de Sitter space.  Thiis space has the property that separate points
move apart exponentially as time progresses.  So, de Sitter space is
chock full of event horizons which produce lots of Hawking radiation.
This Hawking radiation causes the space to expand, generating more event
horizons, etc.  The space has a density of around 10^93 grams per cc and
a temperature of 10^31 degrees K.  Ocasionally, a phase transition
in this space causes a bubble to appear.  This bubble expands at the
speed of light.  Hawking radiation seeps in from de Sitter space making
a big bang.

This theory is nice: it avoids singularities at time 0, it provides for 
the existence of many universes (justifying the anthropic principle),
it explains why the background radiation is so homogeneous (because 
de Sitter space is).  It doesn't explain where de Sitter space comes from,
though.

A final note: I read somewhere about a nifty effect of relativity.
Consider the view from an *accelerating* starship moving near c.  For
any acceleration there is a speed at which strange things happen:
light emitted by a stationary observer behind the starship follows the
starship forever but never quite catches it.  In effect, the starship
has created a black hole behind itself.  This event horizon behaves
just like a black hole and emits Hawking radiation.  For reasonable
accelerations this radiation will be very cold, however.

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

Date:  9 Mar 1982 1220-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Sodium heat engine - SPS application?
To: space at MIT-MC, pourne at MIT-MC

The following appeared in a recent (Feb. 27) Science News:

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

Electricity from a sodium heat engine

Scientists at the Ford Motor Company are developing a new device
capable of converting heat directly into electrical energy.  This
device, called a sodium heat engine, has no moving parts and uses a
small quantity of liquid sodium as its working fluid.

Hot liquid sodium fills one side of a closed container divided into
two parts by a ceramic wall of the compound beta''-alumina.  The wall
allows passage of sodium ions but not electrons or sodium atoms.
Thus, sodium ions go through the solid, ion-conducting electrolyte,
while electrons travel an external circuit to provide a low voltage,
high current electrical output.  A sodium vapor pressure difference
across the electrolyte generates the driving voltage.  In the low
temperature part of the system, the sodium vaporizes from the
electrode surface and then condenses on a cooled wall.  An
electromagnetic pump returns the condensed sodium to the hot region.

The device can use any source delivering heat at 700 degrees C or
more.  Its efficiency, potentially in the range of 30 to 40 percent,
is independent of the heat engine's size.  A model designed for
long-term testing has reached 19 percent efficiency at an output of 22
watts.  The pump siphons off less than 0.1 percent of the energy
output.  The major problem with the system is deterioration of the
electrodes after several hundred hours of operation, which lowers the
voltage and decreases power.  Despite this problem, the sodium heat
engine looks good more promising than many earlier thermionic devices.

The researchers say, "An efficient, durable, low maintenance,
thermoelectric energy converter with good power density, made of
readily available materials and with efficiency independent of size
would have substantial implications for solution of some of the
nation's energy, transportation and defense problems."

Potential applications include use in total energy systems for
residences and factories, in remote locations and as part of solar
energy installations the concentrate light.  Even the rejected heat at
the low temperature end of the cycle can be used.

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

If they can solve that electrode problem this thing could be useful in
solar power satellites.  

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

Date: Tuesday, 9 March 1982  12:49-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: life is dangerous on planets!
To: space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	I was recently musing over the possibility that the dinasours
met their untimely end at the hands of a large meteorite, and the
separate musing that one dinasour was beginning to show some
intellegence when the extinction happened.  The idea was put forth
that an intellegent, warm-blooded reptile might have evolved tens of
millions of years ago if this disaster hadn't happened.
	Is it possible that there is intellegent life on Earth now
because an unusually long period has passed since the last meteorite
has hit?  Perhaps attempts to calculate the distance to the nearest
neighbor ought to include a term for intellegences that never "make
it" because they keep getting creamed.
	I don't think I'd like to live on a planet the neighborhood of
which contained stars .5 parsecs apart!  First, the Sun might be the
target of an occasional near-collision.  Second, because of the higher
density of gas & dust in that region once (or how did there come to be
so many stars?) there might be more junk in the solar system then we
have.  Third, the cometary halo would be more frequently disturbed.
	Does anyone know whether the distance from the Sun to its
nearest neighbor is unusual?

						Dick

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

Date: Mon Mar  8 18:13:56 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!unc!dopey.smb at Berkeley
Subject: Superluminal quasars
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

[It appeas that the ARPANet withholding tax has been levied again, I'm
 looking into it.  -The Ed]

of lightmonths or larger -- not unreasonable if they're some sort of
proto-galaxy, in which case they'd be far larger) -- how can they change
luminosity as quickly as has been reported?  Some sort of time contraction
by the time the light reaches us?

Also, what are the limitations on Very Long Baseline Interferometry?
The case I cited earlier, of apparent superluminal expansion of several
quasars, was detected by VLBI, which means it can be used to determine
at least relative measurements of objects at vast distances.  But it can't
be used to determine absolute distances, or we wouldn't be wondering so much
about the value of the Hubble constant.  Anyone have any details they can
supply?

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

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

11-Mar-82  0304	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #128       
Date: 11 Mar 1982 0303-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #128    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:
		      anisotropic monobloc radiation
		     Anisotropy in Big Bang radiation
		   quasars as continous-drive starships
			Conjunction of the Planets
		       Renaming FUNCTIONAL INFINITY
		     Re: life is dangerous on planets
			   Superluminal quasars
		      Various cosmological comments
		 Re: quasars as continous-drive starships
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 10 March 1982  08:28-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: anisotropic monobloc radiation
To: space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	Consider  the  following   thought  experiment:  Construct   a
transparent [crystal?] sphere a  parsec or so in  diameter, and a  few
meters outside that another sphere, painted black on the inside, whose
temperature is 3 deg. K.  At or near the center of the sphere place  a
measuring apparatus which is  moving with some  speed relative to  the
transparent and black spheres.  Observe the deviation in the radiation
field caused by the Doppler shift.
	Now remove the  black sphere  and set  the transparent  sphere
into motion so it feels isotropic radiation from the Big Bang.   Since
the radiation field on  the surface of the  transparent sphere is  the
same in this experiment as it was before, the motion of the  measuring
apparatus has the same effect on the anisotropy of the radiation as it
would have had the black sphere been there.
	It is thus an easy matter to measure our absolute motion.   We
are actually measuring our motion relative to the part of the monobloc
that occupied our position in the universe in the olden days.
	I believe, by  the way,  that if  I took  two spaceships  tied
together by  a very  long  (1 megaparsec  might  be enough)  piece  of
string, that the string would be under constant tension.  The galazies
aren't receding - there keeps on coming to be more space in between us
and the nearest galaxy.  This  means that another galaxy with  respect
to which we have no red/blue  shift would have a different  anisotropy
in its monobloc radiation measurement.  I haven't quite worked out the
paradox yet,  but I  think that  if  my 1  parsec black  sphere  were,
instead, a megaparsec or so in diameter it would matter which wall  we
were closer to.
	Comments?

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

Date: Tue Mar  9 18:40:25 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!unc!dopey.smb at Berkeley
Subject: Anisotropy in Big Bang radiation
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


The anisotropy in the 3-degree Kelvin background radiation is real,
though of course the interpretation is open to question.  A good
explanation is in the July 16, 1977 issue of Science News; it reports
on work by George Smoot, M. V. Gorenstein, and Richard A. Muller of the
Lawrence Berkeley Lab  (The work was presented at the American Physical
Society Meeting and a meeting of the American Astronomical Society -- no
dates given.)  Basically, they mounted two directional antennas in a U-2
and flew it back and forth, switching things around to cancel out
equipment errors.  The net result is a movement of about 390+/-60 km/sec
toward a point in the sky located at about 11 hours right ascension and
+6 degress declination -- in Saggitarius, if I recall correctly other
stories on the same experiment.

The observation has been confirmed by other experimenters; I can supply
further pointers to Science News stories upon request.  One especially
interesting one is in the January 26, 1980 issue; it describes a
"quadrapole anisotropy" in the background radiation.  The dipole
anisotropy measured by Smoot et al. can be explained as motion; a
quadrapole anisotropy must have to do with the structure of the universe
itself.

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

Date: Tue Mar  9 19:32:48 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: quasars as continous-drive starships
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


are implausible except for IMMENSELY long-distance travel.

At high accelerations (e.g. 1G), it takes only a short time to reach
relativistic speeds (1G is about c/year), and after that you are wasting
fuel and driving up your mass-ratio for very little extra speed.  Clearly
if quasars are continuous for long periods of time they must use quite low
accelerations (the lack of observed drift in Doppler shift also implies
a low rate of change of velocity, leading to the same conclusion).

The problem with low accelerations, say 0.001G, is that it takes centuries
to reach interstellar speeds!  For all but very long trips, acceleration
time dominates travel time so thoroughly that you are better off using
a high-acceleration drive even if it has a lower exhaust velocity (and
hence a lower cruising speed for the same mass-ratio) because it gets
there sooner!  You have to be going a hundred light-years or so before
low-acceleration high-exhaust-velocity drives make sense.  At shorter
distances, even the primitive fusion engines proposed in the Project
Daedalus design study get there first -- and those engines will be the
state of the art here within a century or less.

This has two consequences.  If quasars are the long-range ships, where
are the short-range ships?  If there is enough traffic in this vicinity
for that many long-range ships to be visible (over the entire sky, please
note, not just one area) then we should be in the middle of an active
trading area and should be able to see (and hear!) the short-range traffic.

Maybe the answer is that the ships are ALL long-range and are ALL headed
away from here because something *REAL BAD* is happening in this area
and everybody wants to get as far away as possible.  Hmm, maybe some of
the game-preserve animals on an obscure little planet around an obscure
little sun have gotten out of control...

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

Date: Tue Mar  9 16:08:04 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!lute at Berkeley
Subject: Conjunction of the Planets
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Does anyone know at what time, and on what day the Grand Conjunction of
the Planets is supposed to occur?  I heard that it should be visible at
sunset in the west around the middle of the month.  If you know, please
send the info to mhuxh!lute.  Thanks.

					Jim Collymore

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

Date: Mon Mar  8 14:11:52 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ihnss!eagle!mhuxj!mhuxv!mhuxm!mhuxh!lute at Berkeley
Subject: Renaming FUNCTIONAL INFINITY
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Thanks, Bryan, for the explanation "functional infinities" as the reciprocals
of Delta in calculus.  I see that I will have to create a new term for my
Functional Infinity, so for the time being let's call it:  USTN, for
Universal Space-Time Nexus (prnounced: houston).  

The point of there being only one direction in USTN is not really true, there
are actually two directions.  One direction is spatial and the other is 
temporal.  An example of the difference between the two can be taken from
the movie of H.G. Wells' novel, "The Time Machine."  Although the machine
could travel through time, it could not move an INCH spatially.  Adding
spatial movement, therefore, incorporates a second directional choice.
So, a person in (or at) USTN would have to "move" to a desired temporal
position and then determine the desired spatial position (like setting
the dials on a TV, although this a terrible analogy).

However, there is another direction I hadn't thought of previously, and
that is the movement from USTN into finite (normal) space-time.  If USTN
is to serve any purpose transition is essential, and it IS a direction,
therefore, USTN has three possible directions: space, time and transition.

Finally, I don't know how far-fetched this idea is, but if these three
factors are considered "dimensions," is USTN an alternative dimension
(i.e. 3-D') to our current concepts of the universe?  Is USTN a place
that must be passed through if one is to consider time travel possible
(especially if considering interstellar or inter-galactic travel)?  Is
it a mid-point, previously not described or considered, when considering
changes to matter when one attempts to convert energy to matter?  What's
your opinion?  I would enjoy further replies and discussions on this
from other subscribers to the space newsgroup.


					--James L. Collymore

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

Date: 10 Mar 1982 09:59 PST
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: life is dangerous on planets
In-reply-to: KING's message of 9 March 1982  12:49-PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

As the space junk gets swept up by the planets, collisions are getting orders of
magnitude rarer than they were in the early existence of the planets.  Assuming
our history is typical of a planetary system, it seems that life gets reasonably
safe on planets eventually anyway.  The numbers I've seen on collision
frequency imply that the 65 million years since the supposed collision that wiped
out the dinosaurs is not a particularly long interval.

Given the number of stars in the milky way, its size, and the assumption that
many of its stars are double or worse, the average spacing between star systems
(system = double or single or whatever) is in the range of 8 or 10 light years. 
Of course no star will be exactly equal distant from its neighbors in all
directions, so our distance of 4 light years for the closest direction is quite
average.  This average holds roughly over the outer parts of the galaxy, but is
not valid at all in the areas much closer to the center of a galaxy than we are. 
There the density gets much higher, probably orders of magnitude higher. 
Speculations are that stable planetary systems would not last long in the center
of a galaxy.  

/Don Lynn

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

Date: 10 March 1982 17:26-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Superluminal quasars
To: ucbvax!decvax!duke!unc!dopey.smb at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

If a quasar is a brand-new galaxy, shining mostly by very-massive
(and thus short-lived) stars, in fact perhaps shining mostly by
the accumulated light of supernovas, it's quite possible that
a single supernova could change the brightness measurably within
a period of hours and that if several supernovas just happen
to occasionally explode at the same apparent time as measured
by light that reaches Earth, that the galaxy may appear to double
brightness in a few days. -- I don't recall just how significant
the changes are that are observed to take a few days. Are they
doublings of brightness, or just a percent or so? If they are
factors of ten increase in brightness then I'd tend to reject
my supernova theory, but a few percent usual and doubling on
rare occasions would be satisfied by the galaxy&supernova theory.

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

Date: 10 Mar 1982 2001-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n006  0655  08 Mar 82
BC-SPACE(COX)
By HENRY EASON
c. 1982 The Atlanta Constitution
    WASHINGTON - While others in this town are squabbling over the
dollars and cents of earthly economics, Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., is
literally looking to the stars for deliverance.
    The imaginative former college professor believes, along with Star
Trekkers, that space is ''the final frontier.''
    Gingrich is promoting a bold 30-year plan that would industrialize
and militarize space - a plan he contends would catapult the United
States again into a predominant position in world economics and
defense.
    In doing so, the Reagan loyalist journeys far beyond his party
leader's program to shrink government influence in the economy and
calls for a massive federal commitment to aid business expansion
beyond this planet.
    Testifying before the House space science subcommittee last week,
Gingrich argued that this country's major leaps in economic
development were boosted by an aggressive government.
    Arguing against the nay-sayers, Gingrich said, ''Those people would
not have sent Lewis and Clark to the Pacific Ocean like Thomas
Jefferson...Those people would not have built the transcontinental
railroad with government subsidies, government land, and government
help...Those people would not have built the Panama Canal.''
    Excited by the growing prospects of a jobs and defense-rich space
program, Gingrich is pushing for a $2.4 billion increase in Reagan's
$6.6 billion NASA budget proposal for fiscal 1983. The additional
funds, he said, would go toward expanding the shuttle program,
establishing a permanent base in earth orbit, more vigorously
pursuing research, and advancing the nation's high technology
industry.
    Gingrich is a leader in what has come to be known as the
Congressional Space Caucus, a bipartisan group which is advancing a
vigorous national space program.
    Fellow member Rep. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, said recently, ''Space
offers staggering opportunities for solving major global problems and
the development of new industries.''
    Akaka, Gingrich, and other space proponents are concerned that, as
Akaka put it, ''Federal support for space activities has declined
steadily since the mid-1960s, with a 70 percent drop in constant
dollars (spent), while nearly every other government expenditure has
increased.''
    In an interview last week, Gingrich put it more bluntly: ''We have,
basically, sold out the future.''
    For years, under what Gingrich characterized as the ''liberal
welfare state,'' federal spending has grown in areas lik fotsamps
ane welare, instead o b1
lay the foundations for a
new industrial take-off.
    By n m, ''I think we have lost 10 years and
at least a million jobs,'' Gingrich said. Space development could be
an economic area in which the United States could vastlx outstrip
Japanzse,West German, ande Fovet cobmpetcto
s, he maintained.
    Already, Johnson & Johnson, in a joint venture with the
McDonnell-Douglas Corp., is planning to launch a small pharmaceutical
lab on a space shuttle in July. The small automated factory,
according to McDonnell-Douglas program manager Jim Rose, will be the
first phase of a plan to orbit a small manned factory where far more
effective medicines can be manufactured in a ''zero-gravity''
environment than on earth.
    In congressional testimony last week, the John Deere tractor company
indicated interest in making metal alloys in space for machine parts
that could withstand much greater wear than those made in a gravity
environment. Other industries are also interested in metallurgy in
space.
    There is already a billion-dollar communications industry in space,
one enhancing the transmitting capabilities of firms such as AT&T and
RCA. Other firms believe, according to NASA scientists, that silicon
cystals for computer discs can be made cheaper and better in a
non-gravity environment.
    Oil companies are interested in pressing ahead in the field of
''remote sensing,'' where highly detailed, sophisticated pictures
from space help them prospect for energy.
    ''We're on the cutting edge of a new industrial revolution,''
Gingrich proclaimed.
    Still, knowledgeable congressional observers seriously doubt that
promoters of greater government stimulation in space industries will
get the funds they want in the austere 1983 budget.
    One Capitol Hill insider said that there was an ambiguous space
policy under President Carter. Under Reagan, ''That policy is made
with the budget, and that's a very constrained policy.''
    Gingrich, faulting the Reagan administration's budget design, said,
''I just think (budget director David) Stockman has not been willing
to reshape the budget. What we have now is stinginess, rather than
cutting in one place to invest in another...There are times when you
want to build, and times when you're willing to go into debt - buying
a house, for example.
    ''The point is,'' a congressional observer remarked, ''you can sit
and let things happen, or you can make your own future. We haven't
been doing that in space.''
    Distributed by The New York Times News Service.
    
nyt-03-08-82 0956est
***************

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

Date: 11 March 1982 00:26-EST
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Various cosmological comments
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

1.  How do we know that the known laws of electromagnetism apply on a
    cosmological scale?  I will try to remember to research this question
    next time I'm at the Stanford physucs library.  Somebody remind me
    if I don't respond for a while.

2.  Are the laws of physics invariant with respect to the observer's
    velocity?  Well, no counterexample is known.

3.  In an experiment in which a radar beam passed near the sun, did
    its velocity differ from c as passed the sun?  Removing from
    consideration the index of refraction of the interplanetary plasma,
    the speed of light is always c.  Experimentally, the transmission time
    from Earth to satellite to Earth was measured.  The result was
    consistent with the general theory of relativity, but inconsistent
    with, for example, special relativity plus Newtonian gravity.
    The general relativistic interpretation is that the sun curves the
    surrounding space, and thus alters the optical path length.  One
    could try to claim that the speed of light was altered, but then
    one can just as well claim that the Earth is the center of the
    solar system; neither assumption contradicts experiment, but just
    needlessly complicates the theory.

4.  A very serious problem with the "bubble in de Sitter space" theory
    of the origin of the universe is that it requires the de Sitter
    space to have existed in a metastable state for the infinte amount
    of time preceeding the formation of the bubble.

5.  This de Sitter space theory is not radical enough to have any bearing
    on the "Anthropic Principle".  This princlple, apparently first
    expounded by John Archibald Wheeler, permits the existence of all
    possible universes.  Those universes suited to the development of
    intelligence will be the ones observed to exist.  At a lecture at
    Harvard many years ago, Wheeler said that one of his students had
    computed that organic chemistry type life could not exist if the
    fine structure constant were more than about 1% different from its
    known value.  There is good evidence that the fine structure constant
    is the same far away as it is here, for a change in that constant
    would affect atomic spectra in a manner that could not be explained
    by redshift.  We do not have a physical thoery to explain the value
    of the fine structure constant, so it is possible that there is no
    explaination for its value.  Then the anthropic principle comes to
    the rescue and tells us that if its value were different, we would
    not be here to measure it.

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

Date: Wed Mar 10 12:59:45 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley
Subject: Re: quasars as continous-drive starships
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I disagree with the comment that after a year at 1G you are wasting your time
putting on more speed.  You may be wasting earth-time, but you are not
wasting your own dilated time.  For the ship, there is no such thing as
the "speed of light" barrier.  It is fundamental to physics that you can not
detect the asymptotic nature of acceleration the Earth observer sees.
As far as you are concerned, you go faster and faster, beyond one light
second/second as if there were no barrier.

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

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

12-Mar-82  0303	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	SPACE Digest V2 #129       
Date: 12 Mar 1982 0302-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #129    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 129

Today's Topics:
			      High Frontier
		      Re: Conjunction of the Planets
			      Comet Showers
			     shuttle landing
		      Various cosmological comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 82 11:11-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
To: space at mc
Subject: High Frontier

!n002  0607  11 Mar 82
BC-WILSON-03-11
    A COMMENTARY column
    By David B. Wilson
    (c) 1982 Boston Globe (Field News Service)
    WASHINGTON - High Frontier is Star Wars, nature imitating art.
Knee-jerk nukies, no-win pacifists and the compulsively seditious
aren't going to like it. They want to ban the bomb in Outer Space.
    Better there than here. Think about it.
    Innocence is irrecoverable. Humankind is forever barred from the
pre-Alamogordo Eden. Whatever Dr. Helen Caldicott and her antinuclear
allies say or do, there are bombs; there are going to be bombs; and,
if every nuke stored or deployed should miraculously disappear, the
plans and components would remain in readiness on the shelf.
    The problem, then, is not to ban the bomb, a quixotic adventure
which, human history conclusively teaches, is not feasible. The
problem is to prevent it from killing and hurting people and
destroying their civilization and, quite possibly, their species.
    High Frontier, for those who came in late, is a set of proposals
unveiled in Washington by the Heritage Foundation embracing
satellite-borne antimissile defense systems and, in a synergistic
fiscal marriage of military and civilian functions, exploitation of
the industrial and commercial potential of space and the collection
of solar power and its transmission to Earth for peaceful use.
    Lt. Gen. Daniel O. Graham (Ret.) is former chief of the supersecret,
bigger-than-CIA Defense Intelligence Agency. He directed the High
Frontier study. He told a press conference at the Sheraton Carlton
that 95 percent of Soviet ICBMs could be shot down, most of them on
ascent, by a 432-satellite Global Ballistic Missile Defense System
(GBMDS) acquiring targets by optical tracking and firing heat-seeking
missiles.
    The announcement came the same day (March 3) that the Washington
Post's George C. Wilson reported that the Pentagon expects the Soviet
Union to deploy laser weapons in space as early as next year.
    The Post story smelled to old Washington hands of premeditated and
coordinated leak, but that does not mean it is not true.
    Graham is to be taken seriously. He campaigned for Ronald Reagan in
1980. He and Heritage, the supervening conservative think-tank, have
access. High Frontier envisions a $50 billion, Manhattan
Project-style effort. The paperwork is on Ronald Reagan's desk.
    You don't have to work for the Hudson Institute or the Rand
Corporation to figure out that any Soviet deployment in space of
antimissile laser beams fatally upsets the balance of terror, the
antiwar strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that has in
recent history deterred both sides. If they can hit you and you can't
hit them, the outlook is Pax Sovietica.
    But if both sides deploy extraterrestrial navies, their field of
battle 20,000 miles up, human casualties are certainly going to be
minimized in any conflict.
    Further, the loser in this capital-intensive conflict will not be
tempted to launch ICBMs. Why? Because the loser in Star Wars would
have to know that his nukes would not get through but his opponent's
nukes would.
    Escalation scenarios under the aptly acronymed (MAD) doctrine
uniformly posit that the loser would inevitably resort to his big,
city-busting nukes. In High Frontier's Star War, the loser simply
surrenders after a battle above the clouds.
    The moral squalor and Doomsday potential of MAD are as apparent to
Gen. Graham as they are to Dr. Caldicott. At this intersection of
destiny, the pertinent question is which approach is the more likely
to lead to Armageddon.
    High Frontier promises to be the critical strategic, diplomatic,
technological and even philosophical issue of the decade. That its
source is a conservative soldier may initially burden it with a
public relations handicap.
    But it would not add a kiloton to the world's menacing nuclear
arsenal. Instead, it would make much of it obsolete. It implies a war
among machines rather than against people. That would be genuine
defense, cheap at any price.
    END
    
nyt-03-11-82 0904est
**********

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

Date: 11 Mar 1982 12:08 PST
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Conjunction of the Planets
In-reply-to: Jim Collymore's message of Mar  9 16:08:04 1982
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

The best grouping of the planets (as seen from the sun, not from earth) occurred
yesterday.  Then Mercury passed the most easterly planet and is starting to pull
away to widen the total span that includes all the planets (about 95 degree angle
for all 9 -- only Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are really very close in angle).  From
earth, the situation is complicated because the inner planets (Mercury and
Venus), are almost opposite from the outer planets.  

The best time to see all planets at once was when Mercury was farthest from the
sun as seen from earth, and therefore the sky was still the darkest when
Mercury rose just before dawn.  This occurred a couple of weeks ago.  You can
for the next few months catch all but Mercury after 3 am or so when Venus has
risen.  Only Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn can be seen in the evening now, as the
rest rise later.  Mercury will move to the sunset side of the sun in a few weeks,
but if I recall correctly Venus will remain on the dawn side for much longer. 

Pluto will take at least a ten inch telescope and a good finder chart.  The rest
can be seen naked eye except Uranus and Neptune, which require at least
binoculars.

/Don Lynn

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

Date: 11 Mar 1982 1302-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Comet Showers
To: space at MIT-MC

On the subject of close encounters with nearby stars (not aliens!),
I read that a brush with a star could cause a "comet shower", sending
thousands of comets from the cometary halo into the solar system.
Many would collide with the planets, either immediately or after being
deflected into closed orbits by the gas giants.  Perhaps this happened
65 million years ago?

De Sitter space: The argument that the de Sitter space thepry is false
because the space must exist for an infinite period of time in a
metastable state is flawed.  For one thing, the space can produce
unlimited numbers of separate universes.  For another, how do you
measure time?  The best you could say is that there are infinitely
long world lines.  Spacetime cannot be said to exist at certain
moments and not at others: the concept of time is meaningless unless
spacetime exists.

-------

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

Date: 11 Mar 1982 2020-PST
From: Ron Goldman <ARG at SU-AI>
Subject: shuttle landing
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Could anyone who's been to Edwards for the earlier shuttle landings please
pass on any info about things like: Can you camp there the night before?
If not is there anywhere nearby to set up a tent? Where's a good place to
watch from or isn't there really any choice. How bad is the traffic jam
before & after? And anything else one should know. Thanks.

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

Date: 12 March 1982 02:10-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Various cosmological comments
To: ES at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

You've just inspired something brilliant in me, an anthropic
explanation for redshift of distant galaxies! Suppose that some
physical "constant" that affects the global characteristics of atomic
spectra varies continuously but otherwise is free to vary at will.
Suppose that when this "constant" is at a maximum, energy (frequency)
of spectral lines is at a maximum, and life evolves at a maximum rate.
Then the reason we observe distant galaxies redshifted is that we
happen to be at a local peak in this physical "constant". Why does
this "constant" happen to be at a maximum here, because if it weren't
then life would evolve somewhere else instead of here and we would be
there instead of here looking at the Universe.

I don't for a moment propose this theory, but it's hard to refute!
Anybody want to try?

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

Date: 12 March 1982 03:44-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
To: OTA at SU-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Congressman Gingrich will be at the L-5 Converence 2-4 April in
Los Angeles at the LA Airport Hyatt Hotel, along with Mr.
Heinlein and a number of other leaders in the space movement.

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

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

13-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #130    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 130

Today's Topics:
			     Quasar theories
		    Re: Wilson's High Frontier column
			   Re: shuttle landing
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #129
			   Private Enterprise 
		 A note about the "High Frontier" article
			 Something *REAL BAD*...
			   Re: shuttle landing
				variable c
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 1982 1028-EST
From: FREDERKING at CMU-20C
To: space at MIT-AI
Subject: Quasar theories
Message-ID: <820211102832FREDERKING@CMU-20C>

I'm not a regular reader, so excuse me if this has been discussed, but
is it possible to account for the red-shifts of quasars by assuming they
are extremely massive, so that it is a gravitational red-shift?  They would
have to be fairly spread out to avoid becoming black holes, but this would
account for only seeing red shifts, and would leave the question of distance
open (unless you assume such objects only existed in the early universe).

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

Date: 12 Mar 1982 11:01:27-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Re: Wilson's High Frontier column
Cc: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX, mclure at SRI-UNIX

   Sigh. I suppose it's our compensation for having home-grown Ellen Goodman
that Bostonians also have to acknowledge a flaming idiot like Wilson.
Wilson is, like Talleyrand, a lord of the weathervane; he talks libertarian
when anyone might be infringing on his freedom to be a fool but throws
around jabber like "compulsively seditious" when he wants to stomp on the
opposition. I don't mind being called a "no-win pacifist" by canaille like
him; I would much rather see a continuing stalemate than the Pax Americana
that he seems to look forward to.
   Wilson is particularly a fool for believing the Heritage Foundation,
which is devoted to the god-and-devil theory of world affairs. That a
conservative military man endorses this fruitcake idea is no advantage;
in this age very few military men are ever willing to turn down
technological gimcrackery. (I'm beginning to feel that we're on the
wrong side of Arthur C. Clarke's "Superiority".)
   So satellites and a space navy from one "side" defeat the other "side"
in a space battle. How do they enforce their victory on the world below?
About all they can do from that height is throw bombs, and they couldn't
even prevent the US and the USSR from wiping out each other with low-flying
weapons---our cruise missiles and George O. Smith's post-Cuba bogie of tramp
freighters with short-range missiles in their holds (to say nothing of
random saboteurs---even high-minded ones as in Joe Haldeman's
"Modest Proposal"). In the meantime, all it takes is one ill-tempered
officer to take a few shots at communications satellites and I expect
we'd really be up for it (anyone have figures on the percent of traffic
that goes through a satellite nowadays?).
   Thirty years ago, Lester del Rey portrayed a deluded heavy trying to
prevent the arming of the first space station. As far as I'm concerned,
that individual was the one true hero of STEP TO THE STARS. I am
fascinated by the parallels to early aviation history---the dreams and
the windy rhetoric alike being eclipsed by nationalist idiots.

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

Date: 12 Mar 1982 09:31 PST
From: Suk at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: shuttle landing
In-reply-to: ARG's message of 11 Mar 1982 2020-PST
To: Ron Goldman <ARG at SU-AI>
c:  space at MIT-MC

Ron, 

I went to Edwards when Columbia landed the second time.  I can't help you
much, but:

I had a pass from a friend at NASA so watched from the place to which I
was directed after arriving on the base.  I believe the off-base viewing
is rather limited, crowded, and not that good, but that's only hearsay.  I
understand that many local C of Cs have passes available for the asking.
If you know anyone in city government anywhere in California, you should
be able to scrounge up a vehicle pass.  As a last resort, call NASA at
Moffet Field.

The traffic was not bad.  People arrive mostly during the last few hours
before touch-down.  We left the Bay Area at 1:00 a.m., had breakfast in
Bakersfield, and got there around 9:00, still time for a little shuteye
before the big event.  Of course, I don't know the planned landing time
this time.  We left immediately afterward, and traffic wasn't bad at all.
If we waited around a little, it might've been worse.

I enjoy camping, but didn't try it there.  On the base, RVs and autos are
all herded together.  They have portable johns, drinking water, hot dog
stands, and souvenir tents set up within walking distance, but you'd have
to call them about whether they allow overnight camping -- I doubt it.

The whole thing is over in such a hurry, especially after waiting in
anticipation for many hours.  You can see it better on TV, but it's still
an experience I'm glad I had.  Good luck!

Stan

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

Date: 12-Mar-82  9:53:24 PST (Friday)
From: Trigoboff at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #129
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 12 Mar 1982 0302-PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

Re: High Frontier

In this week's Science magazine is an article claiming that
satellite-based anti-ballistic-missle systems are a crock.  The reason is
that one (yes, ONE!) three-megaton warhead, detonated above the atmosphere
would destroy almost all of them.  (The survivors would be the ones in the
Earth's shadow from the blast.)  Two warheads would kill them all.

The mechanism would be high voltages (~ 1,000,000 volts/inch) induced by
the impact of charged particles from the blast.  The destructive effect
stretches out past geosynchronous orbit, even if the warhead goes off just
above the atmosphere.

This claim is made by the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA).  DARPA, which is
developing these space-based weapons, has the following response to DNA's
claim:  "We haven't gotten around to studying that problem yet."

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

Date: 12 Mar 1982 1102-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Private Enterprise 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n008  0632  12 Mar 82
BC-SATELLITES(COX)
SATELLITES COULD BRING JOBS TO HAWAII
By SCOTT C.S. STONE
c. 1982 Cox News Service
    SOUTH POINT, Hawaii - On this southernmost tip of the United States,
where the Polynesian discoverers of Hawaii probably first stepped
ashore, the first U.S. commercial satellites are to be launched by
private enterprise.
    Known to local residents as Ka Lae, South Point formerly was the
site of a NASA tracking station. Today it is grazing land for cattle,
a favorite launching site for fishing boats, and likely a place of
great historic value to Hawaii.
    The mayor of the island of Hawaii, Herbert Matayoshi, has vowed to
protect whatever historic sites are yet to be found, but at the same
time welcomes the satellite enterprise which, he believes, will be an
asset on an island suffering from high unemployment and slumping
sugar and tourism industries.
    The Houston firm of Space Services, Inc., of America has been
negotiating with the state's Department of Planning and Economic
Development as well as the mayor of Hawaii Island and other
officials. If negotiations succeed, the firm could be launching
anywhere from 2 to 12 satellites a year by 1985. The satellites would
provide customers with weather information and communications
channels.
    South Point was selected because it is the U.S. site closest to the
equator and most feasible for satellites with equator orbits.
    Matayoshi told Cox News Service that ''We will make sure historic
sites are protected, and that our environment is not disturbed. We
are very impressed with the concern shown so far by the company (SSI)
for these issues. We think it's going to work out all right.''
    The state's planning director, Hideto Kono, said the
satellite-launching plan was ''not a wild dream, but a very real
possibility,'' and said the state welcomed the new industry and would
give it all possible support.
    Hawaii Island is four times the size of the other Hawaiian islands
but with far less population. The island's tourism industry has been
in a slump for the past two years, and its construction industry in
decline. Additionally, a sugar plantation has closed and unemployment
has reached 9 per cent, the highest in Hawaii. An asset is its land
area, and the new satellite industry could require some 200 acres
simply for a launching site, plus adjacent land for support
facilities.
    South Point is an isolated, lava-strewn stretch of coastline where,
historians believe, Polynesians from the Marquesas Islands may have
first landed in Hawaii more than a thousand years ago.
    The satellite firm, SSI, reportedly is working on a solid-fuel
rocket which might be test-launched in Texas this summer, but the
first continuing launch program is scheduled for Hawaii and
preliminary studies indicate the starting date would be within the
next three years.
    
Distributed by The N.Y. Times News Service
    
nyt-03-12-82 0932est
***************

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

Date: 12 Mar 1982 1215-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: A note about the "High Frontier" article
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]12-Mar-82 12:15:38.WMARTIN>

This article referred to the "supersecret, bigger-than-CIA Defense
Intelligence Agency".  Sorry, not so.  Published figures
(somewhat old, but the exact figures are unimportant) show that
the DIA has about a third the employees of the CIA.  So it can't
be bigger.  (It might well be BETTER, though...)

Will Martin

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

Date:  12 March 1982 18:45 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Something *REAL BAD*...
To:  Space at MIT-MC

    From: ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley

    Maybe the answer is that the ships are ALL long-range and are ALL
    headed away from here because something *REAL BAD* is happening
    in this area and everybody wants to get as far away as possible.
    Hmm, maybe some of the game-preserve animals on an obscure little
    planet around an obscure little sun have gotten out of control...
    
What, little ol' us? Scare that many people that badly? People that
can build starships like that??

I think I'm flattered. And a bit scared myself...

			Paul

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

Date: 12-Mar-82 17:38:21 PST (Friday)
From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: shuttle landing
To: Ron Goldman <ARG at SU-AI>
cc: Space @ MC, Hamilton.ES

I motorcycled up for the first landing (which I would guess is
as crowded as it would ever get).  It was all handled extremely
well by the Air Force folks.  Traffic moved steadily.  I got in
about 2am the night before.  You're free to park and drop your
sleeping bag at the spot they direct you to.  They had everybody
strung out in the eastern part of Rogers (dry) Lake, in an area
about two miles N-S and 1/2 mile E-W.  There were lots of porta-potties
and drinking water, but bring your own food.  I was able to get
right up along the fence to view the landing -- the crowd wasn't
more than about two deep, since lots of folks prefer the roofs
of their RVs.  You're free to walk around anywhere within the public
viewing area.  Columbia made a loud double sonic boom as it passed
overhead at about 50,000 feet and Mach 2, then pulled about a 220-degree
turn for final approach.  It wasn't visible until about half a
minute before touchdown, on final.  Touchdown was about two miles
from my viewing site, and was so smooth that I could only identify
it by the clouds of dust that started to appear.  I didn't have
any trouble getting out, but even if I'd been in a car, I don't
think it would have taken much over half an hour to get out of
the worst traffic jams.

The latest weather-word is that Rogers may be too wet for landing
STS-3 there.

--Bruce

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

Date: Tue Mar  9 15:02:43 1982
'o: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: variable c
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

	Pardon me...I should have reported the variable G statement as 
conjecture rather than fact.  Dirac suggested it, and there has been some
recent (circa december 1980) evidence in favour of it.  I have seen these
results in several places, but unfortuantely th only one that I can remember
is in Expanded Universe, which (all due respect to RAH) is not a definitive
source.  Sorry.
	As for the conjecture of a variable c, it was suggested here that
c is some function of the curvature of spacetime, which, agreed, implies
preferred reference frames.  A correspondent at pur-ee!purdue!pur-ph wrote
privately to say that in fact it was a well-known result of general relativity
that light speeds up in the near neighbourhood of a star - which (I think)
is precisely what I suggested might be the case.  Of course, I might
have missed the point entirely.
	Comments?

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

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

14-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #131    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 131

Today's Topics:
			    Source of hydrogen
			     Source of carbon
		      That 3 meg weapon in Science  
			   Glenn for President?
			       Edwards AFB
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 March 1982 09:51-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Source of hydrogen
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Greg Yob (inventor of WUMPUS) says surveys of the moon show there's a
thin layer of surface-of-moon (perhaps a millimeter thick) which
contains particles of solar wind (mostly Hydrogen) that have collided
with the surface of the moon for billions of years and gradually built
up. He says there's enough Hydrogen to make it worth extracting.
(Recall, we can get lots of Oxygen, Silicon, Aluminum, Magnesium,
Titanium, etc. from moonrocks, but there's a problem getting Hydrogen
and Carbon, both essential in space industry.) He suggests something
like this: A vehicle containing a dome that can be set down in various
locations, and a laser to zap the surface under the dome to vaporize
the surface. The rock quickly condenses back to dust and quickly falls
back to the surface, leaving the Hydrogen as a thin gas under the
dome. The Hydrogen can then be pumped out of the dome into a storage
container containing some chemical that readily reacts with free
Hydrogen. Pumping methods include (1) make the dome collapsable,
squeezing the Hydrogen out to another chamber (containing the
Hydrogen-liking chemical) [Yob], (2) make the dome a cylinder and put a
lid on the bottom to keep the Hydrogen from being pushed back into the
surface of the Moon, then push down with a piston to squeeze the
Hydrogen out a pipe to the other chamber [Maas], (3) mount a turbine
pump inside the chamber, so the gas collides with the spinning turbine
and gets deflected circumferentially into pipe leading to other
chamber or directly to chemical located around the spinner [Yob].

Thus the hydrogen previously thinly spread all over the surface can be
quickly concentrated to this chemical compound which can be
transported inexpensively back to the processing station where the
hydrogen is re-extracted from chemical, leaving the chemical free to
be used again perhaps.

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

Date: 13 March 1982 09:58-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Source of carbon
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Greg Yob suggests that carbonaceous meteors might have falled on the
moon and remained near enough the surface to be profitable to mine. We
might survey this from orbit, perhaps on the same mission as the polar
orbiter (looking for water ice near poles). Once we locate the
carbonaceous meteorites, I'm not sure how best to collect them. Maybe
take a large survey and try to find the largest concentration in a
local area, and send a lander there with a rover to go around and
collect them all. In any case, it might be faster to pick the
meteorites off the moon than try to divert an asteroid or comet to
Earth vicinity. (Recall, orbital mechanics would cause asteroid or
comet capture to take many years, whereas objects can be picked off
the moon in just a couple weeks once we know where to land.) Thus
during initial bootstrapping when we need a moderate amoung of Carbon
*FAST* we might be better getting it from the Moon.

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

Date: 13 Mar 1982 1915-PST
From: JPM at SU-AI
Subject: That 3 meg weapon in Science  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I'll have to read the article, but it sounds like a crock.  A nuclear
weapon is NOT very good at distributing energy throughout a wide area (ie
it wastes a lot of energy at ground zero), space is not a good medium for
the transmission of any left over energy in a manner that will deliver a
deadly dose far away (and 1000km to 20000km is FAR away), and the form
of energy in this particular place would be KE of high speed particles,
which seems to be very similar to cosmic rays and solar flares, which
any station would have to guard against anyway (and which is relatively
easy to guard against, as many SPS and Space Colony studies have made
clear).  They may be correct, but I have not been impressed with stories
in Science I have read in the past (ie whenever they talked about things
I knew about they were usually wrong in significant ways).  Anyone
interested in high energy atmospheric physics out there who could
crunch some rough numbers?

Jim

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

Date: 13 Mar 1982 2038-PST
From: JPM at SU-AI
Subject: Glenn for President?
To:   space at MIT-MC
CC:   poli-sci at MIT-AI 

John Glenn is seriously thinking of running for President in 1984.  He
is the only democratic candidate I could support.  I feel fairly positive
that he would support the space program (!)  And his 10 years in the Senate
would have given him more real experience than Reagan (or Carter) had when
they came into office.

Could Glenn get the nomination?  Could he win?  SHOULD he win?  Any
opinions out there?

Jim

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

Date: 14 March 1982 01:23-EST
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Edwards AFB
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     I was there for the second landing.  The Chambers of Commerce of
most large cities have entrance passes available for free, however these
passes weren't being checked when I arrived.  The real value of getting
a pass is for the map that is enclosed.  The base opens 24 hours before
the landing, and you may camp at the public viewing area.  However it's
likely to be pretty noisy, and I advise camping somewhere along the way.
I was southbound on 395, a rather unlikely route for most of you, and
camped off a dirt side road somewhere south of Ridgecrest.  For those
leaving from the San Francisco area, I suggest camping off the road to
California City (left turn off 58 a few miles west of Mojave).  Those
arriving via 14 should be aware that the Rosamund Boulevard entrance
is closed to the public.  Plan to arrive at least a few hours before
the landing to avoid a traffic crunch.  The base will be closed to
arriving vehicles about a half hour before the landing in order to permit
all lanes to used for departing traffic.  Leave quickly after the landing,
because the RV's will take a few extra minutes for the folding chairs and
televisions to be packed.  Traffic was fairly slow getting to the North
exit, but looked like a complete standstill southbound (the direction
toward L.A.).  The best viewing location is the top of an RV.  Another
good spot is one of the hills east of Rodgers Dry Lake.  I watched from
the Northwest corner of the public viewing area, as close to the fence
as I could get.  People were packed about a dozen deep there, but that
location had the advantage of a 270 degree view at ground level.

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

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

15-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #132    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V2 #131    
			      space station?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 1982 2304-PST
From: tom spencer <CSD.SPENCER at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #131    
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: CSD.SPENCER at SU-SCORE
In-Reply-To: Your message of 14-Mar-82 0302-PST

Subject: That 3 meg weapon in Science  
	Some random comments.  There is no relevent ground zero for
a blast this high.  There was a nuclear weapon detonated in the upper
atmosphere in the past.  (Late '60s maybe ?)  Models of the ionosphere
still take explict account of the effects of this weapon.
		-Tom
-------

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

Date: 15 Mar 82 1:52-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
To: space at mc
Subject: space station?

!a017  0050  15 Mar 82
PM-National Briefs,600
    COCOA, Fla. (AP) - The administrator of the American space program
says the United States may join with Japan and Europe within the next
five years to build an orbiting space station.
    James Beggs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
told the newspaper Cocoa TODAY in an interview published Sunday that
the station would use European Space Agency technology in building
spacelabs and Japanese computer expertise. He said habitable modules
connected by steel beams would be designed at the Johnson Space Center
in Houston and launched piece-by-piece from the Kennedy Space Center
in Florida.

ap-ny-03-15 0343EST
**********

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

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

16-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #133    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 133

Today's Topics:
			    Planetary Society
		    An international space station?!? 
			 Glenn for President    
			 Re: Superluminal quasars
		    Space Shuttle Operating Frequencys
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu Mar 11 02:08:26 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!pat at Berkeley
Subject: Planetary Society
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

I just got junk mail from "The Planetary Society" inviting
me to join.  Carl Sagan & Bruce Murray are co-founders.
Are the benifits worth the $15.00 price ?  How good
is "The Planetary Report" ?


Patrick E. Kane
Computing Services Office
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

 ...decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!pat

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

Date: 15 Mar 1982 0403-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: An international space station?!? 
To:   space at MIT-MC
CC:   OTA at S1-A   

A couple of comments on the message sent in by McLure quoting Beggs as
suggesting that a Japanese, ESA and NASA cooperative Space Operations
Center might be in the works:

First I think it is possibly the best thing that could happen with respect
to the opening up of space.  The Europeans and the Japanese are more
interested in space development than we are.  This, sad to say, is the
impression I get.  So it would probably not be dropped after a year or two
due to budget cut backs.  Also it would provide a non-military platform
for Space Operations.  This might get our military in gear to build one of
their own, which they need.  Also all parties should have good attitude
towards leasing out space to companies for private R&D work.

However, it seems very unlikely to actually come to pass.  The Europeans
at least have learned that the US doesn't live up to its agreements on
cooperative space ventures.  What assurances are we likely to be able to
offer that we will hold up our end of an operation like this?  What
actually seems more likely is that the Japanese and the Europeans will put
one up on their own, using Ariane, or buying shuttle launches.

Here are a few excerpts from a more complete article (the expanded story
doesn't add much other info):

	However, the building of a manned space station with the help of
    European hardware, Japanese computer technology and the U.S. space
    shuttle is still in the talking stages, Beggs said in an interview
    with the newspaper Cocoa TODAY, which was published Sunday.

["When all is said and done a lot more is said than done"]

	''Generally, they are interested. Right now the Japanese and
    Europeans want to see if they can get some benefit. They want a piece
    of the action,'' Beggs said in Washington, D.C.

[This is clearly bull.  What is more likely is that they wonder if
 WE want a piece of the action.  Beggs is probably just trying to 
 soften the blow to our national ego.  Anyone look at the semiconductor
 business lately?]

	Using the 10-nation European Spacelab technology, the station would
    be made up of habitable modules connected by steel beams, technology
    also under study at Marshall Flight Center at Huntsville, Ala., Beggs
    said.

[I assume the reference to "steel" beams is total nonsense, inserted
 by the newspaper people.  I wonder if they got any of the other
 facts correct.  Is there a scrap of structural steel in anything sent
 into space in the last 10 years?]

	The Japanese Space Agency's contribution would come from their
    prowess in computer technology, he added.
    . . . 
	''The shuttle will be our key element,'' Beggs said. ''We have the
    means to do it and, as the shuttle evolves, it will be able to carry
    heavier and heavier payloads,'' mostly composed of space station
    parts.

[What a statement!  The only thing we have to offer the rest of the
 world in a project to build a space station is the space shuttle
 that we initiated the design of 13 years ago.  What a state of
 affairs!  Has everybody signed up for lessons in Japanese?]

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

From: BRUC@MIT-ML
Date: 03/15/82 14:54:51
Subject:  Glenn for President    

BRUC@MIT-ML 03/15/82 14:54:51 Re:  Glenn for President    
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
	I've heard Glenn give interviews when SALT II was being negotiated,
during the AWACS sale debate, and around the first shuttle launch. 
He impressed me very much as he is very knowledgable and bright.
He's also an excellent speaker, and would impress the masses.
He supports basic research including NASA (he wouldn't bite the hand
that fed him!).
	I think he would make a potent candidate. First of all, he was
a national hero in 1962, so anyone over 30 (or so) would remember
that. He's American as apple pie and motherhood, is reasonably
religious, and therefore, would not alienate the moderates or
reasonable conservatives (the Moral Majority types I'm sure would find
a reason to hate him.)  He has great stage-presence and can impress
people by his demeanor nearly as well as Reagan can. Since he's a
Democrat, he could move into the power vacuum that exists in that
party right now and not have to fight too hard to take on whoever the
GOP puts up in '84.
	Glenn is the only Democrat that I could support in 1984. If
he decides to run and doesn't do anything to lose my respect, I will
be supporting him with a reasonable amount of money come 1984.

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

Date: Mon Mar 15 11:25:11 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!unc!dopey.smb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Superluminal quasars
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

REM has a good point.  How significant are the changes?  Also, for those
quasars for which some structure has been observed (i.e., outlying lobes),
are the brightness changes uniform across the entire image?

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

Date: 15-Mar-82 13:57:15 PST (Monday)
From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Space Shuttle Operating Frequencys
To: Space @ MC
Reply-To: Gray.ES @ PARC-MAXC

------------------------------
Date: 15 March 1982 1:46 pm PST (Monday)
From: Gray.ES

Frequencys for the space shuttle will be as follows:

2287.50MHz - Primary voice intercommunications

2217.50MHz -  Secondary voice

2250.00 & 2205.00 - Data and video channels ( FM mode )

VHF backup frequencys: 296.800MHz, 259.700MHz, and 243.00MHz

If your in the Houston Texas area frequency of 171.150MHz will have a
rebroadcast of the shuttles air to ground voice communications.

For the L.A. area the W6VIO repeater on 223.960MHz will also be rebroadcasting
the shuttle.

REMEMBER tape recording or revealing contents of these transmissions are
illegal. 

Have a good time listening. 

Scott

p.s. for anyone succesfully receiving the shuttle direct, let me know what type
of antenna you used.. tnx


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

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

End of SPACE Digest
*******************
17-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	16-Mar-82  1530	mclure at SRI-UNIX 	Glenn for President? hold on.   
Date: 16 Mar 82 15:14-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
To: space at mc
Subject: Glenn for President? hold on.

Foo.  Let's hear more about his views.  Fiscal policy, military
policy, energy, &c.  There's a lot more than just his space ideas to
consider.  I would certainly refrain from voting for him if I didn't
get partial satisfaction in these other (particularly the first two)
much more important areas.

Yes, space is important, but let's not decide on candidates the way
many anti-abortionists pick their candidates, on one plank alone.
That is the sign of a limited world-view and grossly inadequate for
today's complications.


!17-Mar-82  0002	Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A> 	Political messages may be hazardous to your mailing list      
Date: 17 Mar 1982 0002-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Political messages may be hazardous to your mailing list  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

This seems a good time to remind the readers of, and particularly the
contributors to, this mailing list that messages of too overt a political
nature are considered hazardous to its health.

McLure's comment in the previous message, that Space policy should not
be the only criterium used to select a U.S. President, is a good note
to end this discussion on.

Feel free to send me a note at SPACE-Request @ MC or OTA @ S1-A if you
have any questions on this aspect of editorial policy.
	Ted Anderson (The Moderator)


17-Mar-82  0358	OTA  	What this digest would have looked like
SPACE Digest V2 #134
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 134

Today's Topics:
		      Glenn for President? hold on.
	Political messages may be hazardous to your mailing list  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 82 15:14-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
To: space at mc
Subject: Glenn for President? hold on.

Foo.  Let's hear more about his views.  Fiscal policy, military
policy, energy, &c.  There's a lot more than just his space ideas to
consider.  I would certainly refrain from voting for him if I didn't
get partial satisfaction in these other (particularly the first two)
much more important areas.

Yes, space is important, but let's not decide on candidates the way
many anti-abortionists pick their candidates, on one plank alone.
That is the sign of a limited world-view and grossly inadequate for
today's complications.

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

Date: 17 Mar 1982 0002-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Political messages may be hazardous to your mailing list  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

This seems a good time to remind the readers of, and particularly the
contributors to, this mailing list that messages of too overt a political
nature are considered hazardous to its health.

McLure's comment in the previous message, that Space policy should not
be the only criterium used to select a U.S. President, is a good note
to end this discussion on.

Feel free to send me a note at SPACE-Request @ MC or OTA @ S1-A if you
have any questions on this aspect of editorial policy.
	Ted Anderson (The Moderator)

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

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

19-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #135    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 135

Today's Topics:
		 Thought experiment in general relativity
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1982 17:10:41-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley
Subject: Thought experiment in general relativity

Is the path followed by a light ray which is known to intersect tangentially
at one point an infinitely rigid straight rod always along the rod?

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

Date: 18 Mar 1982 18:18:20-PST
From: decvax!minow at Berkeley
To: ucbvax!space@Berkeley

A few years ago, I remember reading about a proposed "light sail race
around the moon" -- the sails being launched from the Space Shuttle.

Can anyone bring me up to date?  How much would an entry cost?
Is the moon kept to port or starboard?

Martin Minow.

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

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

20-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #136    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 136

Today's Topics:
			     Light sail race
			    Be a Solar Sailor 
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #135
		   Space Shuttle experiment slots open
		 Thought experiment in general relativity
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 March 1982 1106-EST (Friday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: decvax!minow at UCB-C70
Subject:  Light sail race
CC: space at mit-mc
Message-Id: <19Mar82 110607 DS30@CMU-10A>

Boy's Life ran a story called "(The) Sunjammer(s)" around 15 years ago.
There was some discussion of it in SF-Lovers some time back.
They started from low earth orbit, and the finish line was the moon's
orbit.

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

Date: 19 Mar 1982 1033-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Be a Solar Sailor 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The story 'Wind from the Sun' (formerly 'Sunjammer') by Arthur C. Clarke
describes a solar sailboat race around the moon in excellent detail.

I understand that at Unispace '82, someone from the US will be issuing a
similar challenge.

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

Date: 19-Mar-82 11:24:06 PST (Friday)
From: Ayers at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #135
In-reply-to: A.exp at Berkeley's message of 19 Mar 1982 0302-PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

"Is the path followed by a light ray which is known to intersect tangentially
at one point an infinitely rigid straight rod always along the rod?"

Yes, but that does not say anything, because "straight" is DEFINED to be
"the path taken by a light ray."

Bob

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

Date: 19 Mar 1982 14:13 PST
From: penalver.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Space Shuttle experiment slots open
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: penalver.es,Wedekind.es

	Through NASA's Get Away Special program a group of JPL employees,
Occidental College students, and other interested persons are developing a
materials processing payload to be flown in late '82 or early '83.

	This payload will contain 18 furnaces able to heat small (2 cc) samples to
1000 degrees Centigrade in 60 minutes. Its purpose is to investigate materials
behavior in near-zero gravity. Each furnace will support an individual
experiment.

	Six of the furnaces are still unallocated. Since we would like to put this
payload to good use we would like to hear from people with good experiments in
mind who are willing to do the ground-based preliminary and follow-up work
involved. You supply the sample and temperature profile. We will, at no cost, fly
and return your sample along with in-flight temperature and acceleration data.
You write a report on the results, which will be published as part of the overall
project report.     

	If you are interested please get back to me. (If you just want to barbecue
some chicken, I suggest your own back yard).

				Tony

			

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

Date: 19 Mar 1982 17:00:42-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley

>From JGA@MIT-MC  Fri Mar 19 06:16:11 1982
Date: 19 March 1982 09:14-EST
From: John G. Aspinall <JGA at MIT-MC>
To: A.exp at UCB-C70

   Date: 17 Mar 1982 17:10:41-PST
   From: A.exp at Berkeley
   Subject: Thought experiment in general relativity

   Is the path followed by a light ray which is known to intersect tangentially
   at one point an infinitely rigid straight rod always along the rod?

What does "intersect tangentially at one point" mean?  If it means
"passes through the point", then the answer is that the light ray is the best
definition of "straight" you've got.

John Aspinall <JGA@MIT-MC>


Intersect tangentially at one point means that the light ray passes through
some point of the rod, and is tangent to that point.

If the rod is first rendered straight by aligning it with a beam of light
in a gravitational field in any given region of the universe, since it is rigid
when it is transported to another region it will remain straight, so it
follows the geodesic of the old region when it is moved to the new one.

The beam of light in the new region will follow the geodesic in the new
region, so will it follow the beam?  The beam of light may be the best
standard of strightness in one region but is this the same as the straight
line defined by another beam of light in a different region?  The purpose
of the rigid rod in the experiment is to allow comparison.

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

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

21-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #137    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 137

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Thought experiment in general relativity
		   Re: light sail race around the moon
			   Glenn for President
		       Re: SPACE Digest V2 #135    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu Mar 18 08:39:49 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Thought experiment in general relativity
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


It depends on the rest of the mass in the universe.  If there is none, I 
would guess "Yes".  Lets see, where did I put my physics book....
  --berry

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

Date: Fri Mar 19 09:21:50 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley
Subject: Re: light sail race around the moon
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I am curious too.  Talk about your "offshore racing"!  Who gets right of
way? the ship on the port or starboard tack? or maybe the up or down tack?
(relative to the ecliptic, of course).  How do you decide which craft is 
burdened?  Enough sailing jargon, the idea is interesting anyway (but
at present sounds more like SF than reality, at least with my
limited info.)  I surmise that most space applications will be more-or-
less serious until it becomes (relatively) inexpensive.  I can't see
anyone spending a billion dollars for a race.  (but then I can't understand why
the America Cup contenders spend millions, but it's their cash,
and fun to watch anyway)

  --Berry Kercheval, Zehntel Inc.

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

Date: Sat Mar 20 05:24:09 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley
Subject: Glenn for President
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


        Everything I have heard so far about Glenn sound good. I would love
to see more money appropriated for space, but I don't want everything else
to go down the tubes if he is lousy in other areas. Can anyone state his
views on other matters of presidential intrest?

					murray at intelqa

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

Date: 21 Mar 1982 0222-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #135    
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: KATZ at USC-ISIF
In-Reply-To: Your message of 19-Mar-82 0302-PST

Thought experiment in general relativity:

How do you define a straight line?  It turns out that a "straight" line
is the path of a light ray, so by definition, if you have a "straight" rod,
a beam of light would follow it.  However, "straight" here means a geodesic
which is a straight line in a curved space.


				Alan
-------

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

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #138    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 138

Today's Topics:
		       Solar sailing, call for info
		     Get-Away Special Bulletin Board
		     Basic information on the shuttle
		     Basic information on the shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 1982 1515-EST
From: Ron Fischer <FISCHER at RUTGERS>
Subject: Solar sailing, call for info
To: space at MIT-AI

If contestants were to use the shuttle to launch from weight would be
>the< expense.  Unmanned craft might be an angle on realization.
Anyone on this list know enough to rough out the costs?  Did the
discussion on SF-LOVERS cover any practical aspects?  (no wise cracks
about that list please...)  How much did NASA estimate for the solar
sail Halley's comet rendevous vehicle?  Could something similar w/o
instrument packages be rigged?

(ron)
PS- How did ESA's plans to visit the comet go?
-------

------------------------------

Date:  21 March 1982 23:55 est
From:  Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Get-Away Special Bulletin Board
To:  SPACE at MIT-MC

I don't remember that this have ever been announced here, so:

A computerized BB for NASA get-away-specials is available by calling
(202) 344-9156.  It operates at 300 baud.  Online instructions are
plentiful.  One can leave messages and, to a limited extent, teleconference
with GAS experimenters, many of whom also use the system.

------------------------------

Date:  22 March 1982 05:19 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Basic information on the shuttle
To:  Space at MIT-MC

I would like some information on the shuttle that, I am sure, someone
out there has. Could someone please tell me:

     - the dimension of the cargo bay,
     - the maximum cargo to LEO,
     - the maximum acceleration the cargo will be subjected to, 
     - and the projected cost for a flight?

Reply to me, please, and I will forward one reply.

			Thanks,
			Paul

------------------------------

Date:  22 March 1982 05:20 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Basic information on the shuttle
To:  Space at MIT-MC

I would like some information on the shuttle that, I am sure, someone
out there has. Could someone please tell me:

     - the dimension of the cargo bay,
     - the maximum cargo to LEO,
     - the maximum acceleration the cargo will be subjected to, 
     - and the projected cost for a flight?

Reply to me, please, and I will forward one reply.

			Thanks,
			Paul

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #139    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 139

Today's Topics:
			       Terraforming
				John Glenn
		      Shuttle Operating Frequencies
		 Poll Finds Skepticism Over Space Program
		       GAS bulletin board computer
		    Stowaway and unplanned experiment
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 1982 0553-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Terraforming
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]22-Mar-82 05:53:28.WMARTIN>

I thought the list might be interested in a new book by James
Oberg, who also wrote "Red Star in Orbit", which I mentioned some
months ago.  It is titled "New Earths -- Restructuring Earth and
Other Planets" (Stackpole, 1981) and discusses possible
terraforming methodologies.

It is largely based on the presentations and discussions at the
terraforming colloquium at the Houston Lunar and Planetary
Science Conference, March 1979.

I've just started it but scanned through it first and can
recommend it as readable and interesting.

One section discusses the mirrors-in-orbit we recently had some
comments about.

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 1982 0634-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: John Glenn
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]22-Mar-82 06:34:54.WMARTIN>

For general background on Glenn's personality and character
traits from a reasonably competent observer, I recommend you read
Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff", which discusses the group of
original astronauts including Glenn.

My other knowledge of him is that he is
anti-freedom-of-gun-ownership, which indicates a desire to impose
onerous restrictions on personal freedom; that is enough to
turn me against him despite other qualifications.  (Personal
opinion.)  Gun issue debate currently (and perennially) rages on
the Poli-Sci mailing list, if you are interested in the topic.

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 22-Mar-82 11:44:35 PST (Monday)
From: Duncan.es
Subject: Shuttle Operating Frequencies
To: Junk^, HamRadio^
cc: Duncan

Correct shuttle operation frequencies on the amateur bands aare as follows:

224.04 MHz	W6VIO
145.60 MHz	W6VIO 2m dump from Mt. Wilson

enjoy

Don .-.-.

------------------------------

Date: 22 March 1982 15:14-EST
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-MC>
Subject: Poll Finds Skepticism Over Space Program
To: SPACE at MIT-MC


From the NYT, Sunday March 21, pg 28:

	"Although half the American public is 'excited' about tomorrow's
planned launching of the space shuttle, far more people believe that too
much is being spent on space exploration than believe too little is being
spent, according to the latest NYT/CBS Poll.
	Rspondents were asked 'Are you excited when you see a space launch,
or don't you care all that much about it?' 51% of the 1,545 adults questioned
in the March 11-15 telephone poll said they were excited, while 46% said they
did not care very much. People with high incomes, college graduates and
Westerners were most interested.
	But when it came to spending, 42% of the respondents said too much
was being spent; 18% said it was too little, and 27% said it was ' the right
amount'. The others had no opinion.
	While 60% of those who said they were not interested believed too much
was being spent, only 29% of those who said they were excited by a launching
said expenditures were too low."

	Looks grim. I guess if you're a laid off steel worker, it seems a
waste of money. I wish they had given more detailed figures; anybody know
more detailed ones? Also, I seem to remember a poll a year or so ago where
the people who thought we were spening too much were in a clear majority.
Anyone remember any details? I hope this doesn't continue.

------------------------------

Date: 22 March 1982 2013-PST (Monday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: GAS bulletin board computer
To: SPACE at AI

I just tried out the NASA GetAway Special Bulletin Board system in
Washington, and was horrified to realize that the thing is a Northstar
computer with two minifloppies.  Period.

I know budgets are tight, but this is ridiculous.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 23 March 1982 02:11-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Stowaway and unplanned experiment
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Oh my goodness, a fruit fly snuck into the Columbia and has been flying
around in zero-gee since orbit was established. I hope the shuttlenauts
have the presence of mind to take advantage of this serendipitous event,
by carefuly observing the ability of the insect to navigate in zero-gee.
(On a later flight a get-away special is supposed to monitor moths trying
to fly in zero-gee, but now we have a chance to get some preliminary info
earlier, and possibly modify the moth experiment to get more info, like
we modified the Voyager 2 schedule after the unexpected Voyager 1 results.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #140    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 140

Today's Topics:
			poll on space expenditure
			   Ham relay of shuttle
		  Re: Stowaway and unplanned experiment
			 "South Atlantic Anomaly"
				   poll
			      shuttle repair
				Space Poll
				that poll
		 Thought experiment in general relativity
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  23 March 1982 09:40 est
From:  York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York)
Subject:  poll on space expenditure
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 23 March 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson

Fun with statistics: That means that only 42% feel that too much is
being spent on space, while 45% think that the right amount or too
little is being spent.  Looks  good...

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 1982 0706-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Ham relay of shuttle
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]23-Mar-82 07:06:20.WMARTIN>

This last weekend's "DX News" report from Glenn Hauser on Radio Canada
International's Shortwave Listener's Digest had this info:

There will be a relay of the shuttle communications via the ham
station W5RRR on the following frequencies (SSB):

3940 kHz
7265 kHz
14280 kHz
21365 kHz
28600 kHz

I tried listening on each of those frequencies last night, tuning a
reasonable amount above and below, and heard no indication of the shuttle
traffic, though.  I don't know if this was intended to relay just
the launch, all the traffic with Houston all during the flight, or just
selected times.  Also, I don't know if they intended to use one frequency
at a time, depending on propagation. all frequencies at once, or some
selection of them.  Anyway, thought it might be of interest to somebody on
the list.  If I detect any relayed traffic, I'll report on it.

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 1982 10:24:37-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: REM at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: Stowaway and unplanned experiment
Cc: Space at mit-mc

   According to two lead stories and a sidebar in today's NEW YORK TIMES,
it's \\this// flight of the shuttle which is testing the capabilities
of a moth and a bumblebee in zero-gee.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 1982 1235-PST
From: Barry Megdal <BARRY at CIT-20>
Subject: "South Atlantic Anomaly"
To: space-lovers at MIT-AI

I was looking a mission map for STS-3 (the current space shuttle mission), 
and noticed a large area off the east coast of South America labeled
"South Atlantic Anomaly".  Anyone know what such a thing is?

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 82 14:18-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
To: jnc at mc, space at mc
Subject: poll

I suggest you ignore all polls about space exploration. What do you
expect in times of recession? 

------------------------------

Date:  23 March 1982 17:31 est
From:  York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York)
Subject:  shuttle repair
To:  space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

I just heard (indirectly) that Columbia lost some (non-critical) tiles
during the launch. Can anyone verify this?  I think that we have been
over this before, but do they have any sort of in-flight repair
capability?  Are they even equipped for EVA?

------------------------------

From: MINSKY@MIT-AI
Date: 03/23/82 15:30:30
Subject: Space Poll
To: SPACE at MIT-AI

There is a context problem about a space-launch poll, surely.

I mean, I like launches a lot but, foo, I like fireworks too.
When John Q Public is asked if he gets excited about launches and, then,
if the Space Program is worth k x 10,000,000,000 dollars, part of his
mind just has to think you're asking if the fireworks budget is big enough!

Too bad we can't have more real space news.  If you catch your
poll sample after showing some knowledge that might bear on terraforming venus,
or on energy or manufacturing in space, or on protecting humanity from
poverty or disaster, that would be the time to ask what it is worth.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 1982 2115-EST
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>
Subject: that poll
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: zeve at RUTGERS

Typical of poll questions (or so it seems to me), the question about
being excited by the shuttle launch doesn't seem to gather any
information.  A better question is "How do you feel about the shuttle
launch and why do you feel it".  Of course, that isn't a simple,
easily tallied question so pollsters shy away from it.  I'm not sure
why, but the question asked feels biased to me; almost as if it was
rigged to get the "I don't care response".

I also have to wonder about the % on the question about too little/too much/
just enough.  As far as I can tell from the figures quoted, 1/4 of the
people who were excited about the launch think we're spending too much!!!!!
(.60*46% = 27.6%.    42-27.6 = 14.4  which is approx  51%/4).  If they think 
that, then I wonder why they're excited about the launch.
(Alas, where is D.D.Harriman when we need him!).

	Steve Z.

------------------------------

Date: 24 March 1982 00:56-EST
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Thought experiment in general relativity
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

     The whole question was improperly posed on account of the non-existence
of rigid bodies.  Suppose you observe a rigid body.  It has the property
that when pushed at one end, all parts of it start to move simultaneously.
However, to an observer moving relative to you, simultaneity is different,
and the body appears nonrigid.  Furthermore, a "rigid" body has an infinite
speed of sound.  To other observers, the speed of sound can be anywhere
down to but always greater than the speed of light.  To some observers
sound travels backward in time.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #141    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 141

Today's Topics:
		      rigid body thought experiment
			   transits of Columbia
		       GAS bulletin board computer
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 24 March 1982  08:02-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL
Subject: rigid body thought experiment

	"Rigid" bodies hold their shape through use of the
electromagnetic force (or other forces that follow geodesics and
propogate at only the speed of light, such as the nuclear forces or
gravity).  They will, therefore, "distort" to conform to the
properties of the space they are imbedded in.

					Dick

------------------------------

Date:  24 March 1982 12:09 est
From:  York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York)
Subject:  transits of Columbia
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 24 March 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson

Does anyone have any information on if, when, and where Columbia might
be visible in the night (early morning?) sky?  I am in Boston, but I am
sure that info for any locality would be appreciated.  I tried to spot
it during STS-1, but the clouds came in 10 minutes before it was due.

[I saw a news story that claimed that this shuttle launch would only be
visible from New Orleans (600 odd miles to the south), and Honolulu (about
250 miles to the south), both on the 5th day I think.
	-Ted Anderson]

------------------------------

Date: 25 March 1982 05:16-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: GAS bulletin board computer
To: lauren at UCLA-SECURITY
cc: SPACE at MIT-AI

The lest they could do is get a Maxi Floppy.

	Actually, I bet I could get Bill Godbout to donate a
better machine for NASA to use...  Wonder if they can take it?
We'll have to ask Hans Mark next week at the L-5 conference.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #142    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 142

Today's Topics:
			  South American anamoly
		      Thought experiment in gen rel
		    shuttle invisibility in the north
			  South Atlantic Anomaly
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  25 March 1982 09:12 est
From:  CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  South American anamoly
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

The South American anamoly is an area where the Van Allen (tm) belts are
particularly close to the surface of the earth.  I recall reading in
Michael Collin's book ''Carrying the Fire'' that Gemini X, which reached
a maximum altitude of 476 miles or so right in this region, was scraping
the bottom of the belts, and some people were concerned about the
increased radiation the astronauts would be exposed to.  Radiation
badges they carried showed no particular problems, though.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 1982 14:43:02-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley
Subject:  Thought experiment in gen rel

Isn't movement backwards in time only a virtual mathematical effect
of the symmetry of particle physics?

No part of the rod undergoes acceleration during the comparison of the path
of the rod in the new region of the universe with the geodesic in that region.
The point about it being impossible for a totally rigid rod to exist is valid,
but once the rod is moved to its new position any sound can be allowed to damp
until no part of the rod is in motion with respect to any other part.

If the speed of light sets an upper limit on the rigidity of a material, a
rod could be considered which would be arbitrarily close in rigidity to the
limit.  The experiment previously posed can be asked in this situation.

As King was saying the solution may be that the forces between the component
atoms of the rod follow the geodesic, causing the rod as a whole to follow
the geodesic.  If however the rod is of finite thickness won't bending
it in this way cause reduction of the distances between atoms on the side
of the rod which is bent towards the concave, with a resulting reactive
force that would prevent the rod from quite following the geodesic?

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 25 March 1982  15:38-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: shuttle invisibility in the north
To: space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	I just assumed that we wouldn't be able to see it this far
north.  Since it was launched pretty close to noon, its local time
(and will orbit for a very small fraction of a year) it will be
crossing the Equator quite close to 6AM and 6PM, and will be south of
the Equator all night.

						Dick

------------------------------

Date:  26 March 1982 00:09 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  South Atlantic Anomaly
To:  Space at MIT-MC

I used to know someone at the NASA Goddard tracking center who could
have told you about this in great detail. I have to work from
(faulty) memory.

The South Atlantic Anomaly is an area lying roughly between Bermuda
and Ascension Island. Within this area, satellites don't work right,
the earth's magnetic field does strange and upredictable things,
spacecraft radios receive odd things, and so on. Goddard would try to
avoid either sending commands to satellites or having them be
executed when the bird was within this region.

Any Bermuda Triangle fans out there??

			Paul

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Mar-82  0301	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #143    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 143

Today's Topics:
				Space Poll
			     poor TV coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 March 1982 08:34-EST
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Space Poll
To: MINSKY at MIT-AI
cc: space at MIT-AI

Re Minsky's complaint that after-launch polls work down to being fireworks
polls:

Hear hear.  A space-launch poll asking serious benefit-oriented questions 
would be a good idea.  Why not assemble a set of such questions in a file,
have someone organize them, and contact one of the polling see if they'll
use it at a propitious time? 

Sample question:
	Weather and earth-resource measurement satellites have resulted
	in how much increased farm productivity in the U.S. (per year)
	in the past 10 years?
		a)	    $1,000,000	__
		b)	   $10,000,000	__
		c)	  $100,000,000	__
		d)	$1,000,000,000	__
		e)     $10,000,000,000	__
(and provide the right answer somewhere, which I happen not to know,
but suspect it is greater than the last suggested answer.)

Next sample question, to follow the first:
	Present expenditure levels for these satellites and associated
	support systems are in the range of how much per year?
		a)	    $1,000,000	__
		b)	   $10,000,000	__
		c)	  $100,000,000	__
		d)	$1,000,000,000	__
		e)     $10,000,000,000	__
(and provide the right answer there too.)

Third sample question, to follow the preceding:
	In your opinion, expenditures for weather and earth-resource
	satellites should be 
		a) cut out altogether			__
		b) drastically reduced			__
		c) slightly reduced			__
		d) kept the same			__
		e) slightly increased			__
		f) greatly increased			__		
		g) increased to encompass the entire GNP
							__		
			<may as well spot the nuts while we're having
			fun>.
	I guess in this case it's hard to provide the "right" answer.

Other interesting topics should cover various benefits engendered or
otherwise associated with the space program.  Eg:  velcro, teflon,
microelectronics, communications, and national defense.  Last sample
question.

	Where would we be without spy satellites, command/control/commun-
	ications satellites, and so on?
		a)	Here			__		
		b)	Heaven			__		
		c)	Hell			__		
	<Note that b) and c) are functionally equivalent.>

Putting my disk space where my mouth is, I have created 
	SPACE-POLL at MIT-MC
where sample questions and flamacious comments may go.

I'll report on what shows up there.

Oded

------------------------------

Date: 26 March 1982 20:41-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: poor TV coverage
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

"at this very hour, the shuttle is crossing the Pacific Ocean heading
toward the West Coast" -- heard on tv news at 17:33 PST.
Do they mean at this very minute, or at 17:00 or 18:00, or do they
expect us to believe what they literally said, that for a solid hour the
shuttle is over the Pacific Ocean the whole time?
P.s. this station (KGO tv, channel 7) has such crummy news that I
avoid it except they have the only 5pm news so I was sort of stuck
with it. (A few nights ago they said something about an elephant
getting a gift from the tooth fairy. But this is SPACE so I'll drop
that issue.)

Is there any really good coverage of the shuttle on TV other than
occasional special coverage on ABC Nightline?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Mar-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #144    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 144

Today's Topics:
			    Shuttle visibility
	       Missing Persons Report / Dead Letter Office
		      Commentary on Space Program  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu Mar 25 08:40:08 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle visibility
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


	According to the STS-3 map published by NASA, the shuttle never 
gets north of San Francisco, (or Pueblo CO, or Kansas City MO, or about
150 miles south of Washington DC.) so I doubt it would be visible from Boston.

						murray at intelqa

------------------------------

Date:  27 March 1982 15:31 est
From:  Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Missing Persons Report / Dead Letter Office
To:  Space at MIT-AI

As the result of a transaction I put in this digest around 9 March, I
was sent a reply by someone cleaiming to be all of the following people:
Douglas P Kingston III; Doug Humphrey at MIT-AI; and ___100 (a terminal)
at MIT-AI.  The sender misspelled my name and the mail was not delivered
until today, when someone discovered it in the dead letter office at
MIT-AI and kindly forwarded it.  MIT-AI's COMSAT originally attempted to
return the message to the sender, but apparently none of the sender ID's
were valid.  A corollary of this statement is that even though I now
have the mail, I cannot repond either.  If the originator would kindly
identify himself with a working net ID, I will happily correspond with
him.  Send reply to "Tavares -at MIT-Multics" and remember that Multics
often requires strict capitalization.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 1982 1804-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Commentary on Space Program  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a511  1938  26 Mar 82
BC-NASA Future, Adv 28-2 takes,700-1500
$ADV 28
Advance for Sunday March 28
Space Program Entering Lean Era
By PAUL RECER
AP Aerospace Writer
    SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - America's manned space program is
moving into a tough new era, a time of lean budgets and rugged
competition for the limited federal dollar.
    Gone are the lush funds that propelled America to the moon, sent a
variety of complex robot craft cruising outward to distant planets and
seemed to offer possibilities limited only by imagination.
    The dreams are just as large, the visions as ambitious, but the
budgets are smaller and the justifications are more pragmatic.
    Ideals are dying in the pinch of economic realities. America went to
the moon, as the famous lunar plaque states, ''in peace for all
mankind.'' But the United States will continue in manned spaceflight,
in part, because of the perceived need for new weapons of war.
    Color the changes gray, blue and red.
    The young engineers and pilots who amazed the world with the
adventures of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo are now graying senior space
statesmen. Many have left the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, replaced by men skilled in the art of the practical
and the politically possible.
    There's also a bluing of NASA. Blue-clad Air Force officers now work
shoulder-to-shoulder with NASA civilians, preparing for the day when
manned spaceflight becomes a part of the nation's arsenal.
    The red is in the NASA budgets of the recent past. In the complex,
decade-long struggle to produce the shuttle, NASA repeatedly faced
cost overruns and was forced to return to Congress for more funds. It
soiled NASA's reputation, earned in the Apollo program, for being an
on-time, within-budget agency. And this has made it more difficult to
run the Washington budget gauntlet.
    President Reagan proposed a NASA budget for fiscal year 1983 of $6.6
billion. This is a $673 million increase over the revised 1982
budget, a boost of about 11 percent, or a slight raise when inflation
is factored in.
    Reagan's proposal is less than NASA requested, but more than was
suggested by Office of Management and Budget.
    NASA was required to reshape priorities, cutting some areas and
boosting others. Science and aeronautics research absorbed most of the
cuts, but the effects rippled throughout NASA.
    Some effects were minor. A hiring freeze created a shortage of
secretaries and some middle-level executives have had to file reports
in handwriting.
    Other effects were more serious, and some fear they will erode
America's pre-eminent role in some elements of space exploration.
    Planetary science was battered the hardest.
    Plans to send a $350 million orbiting radar satellite to Venus were
canceled. This surrenders to the Soviet Union the lead in exploring
that planet.
    Funds for processing and study of data from a group of satellites
orbiting the sun were also cut. Pioneer 6, 7, 8 and 9 are in orbit of
the sun, some out to the vicinity of Jupiter. Data from instruments
probing the solar wind and magnetic fields are now going uncollected.
    The Viking spacecraft on Mars continues to send back data every
eight days, but there now is no money to study the information.
    Some elements of the deep space network, which collects radio
signals from distant satellites, have been shut down.
    Said one NASA official: ''We have enough voices to study the solar
system, but not enough ears to catch the data.''
    An infrared telescope in Hawaii has been mothballed and the lunar
rock curatorial facility at the Johnson Space Center may share a
similar fate.
    Despite the losses, NASA officials who fought the budget battle
seemed content in what was preserved. As administrator James M. Beggs
noted: ''I believe we did well.''
    NASA received funds for the $640 million Galileo mission to Jupiter.
This joint German-American project will be launched in 1985 and will
arrive two to four years later. The craft will release a probe which
will descend toward the planet's surface, passing through atmospheric
layers that may be rich in organic compounds. This may give basic
chemical information on the origin of life.
    A second part of Galileo will remain in orbit of Jupiter, studying
the planet and its four moons with cameras even more sophisticated
than those used on the two Voyager spacecraft that earlier studied the
planet.
    The $800 million space telescope program, perhaps the most ambitious
and sophisticated astronomy project ever conceived, was also
preserved.
    It involves the orbit of a telescope that will be able to look
farther out into the universe than ever before. It will conduct a
basic study of such elements in the universe as black holes and
quasars. It will also be able to search for planets orbiting distant
stars. None has ever been sighted, but the space telescope makes it
possible for the first time to conduct a systematic search.
    The most money in the NASA budget, by far, is going toward the
development and operation of the space shuttle. A total of $3.5
billion is dedicated in 1983 for flying two shuttle orbiters and for
production work on two more.
    Columbia, the craft being flown now, will be joined later this year
by Challenger. The two craft will make five flights in 1983.
    Work will also continue toward developing an upper stage, to boost
satellites to high orbit
    NASA's emphasis on the shuttle springs from two reasons. Experts see
it as the major and most complex step toward a permanent presence in
space and the opportunity to harvest vast benefits for Earth from
space.
    The second reason is that the military need for the space shuttle
virtually assures that NASA will be given the money to build the
system.
    ''The military use of the shuttle helps support the argument for the
need of a Space Transportation System. It helps keep NASA's budget
where it is,'' said Maj. Gen. J. A. Abrahamson, the associate NASA
administrator for Space Transportation Systems.
    The focus of NASA between now and 1985, said Abrahamson, is to
assure that the shuttle is operational and to continue its
''partnership'' with the Air Force.
    Military experts believe the shuttle may be essential for the
defense of the nation in the decades ahead. The Air Force is spending
vast sums to develop a laser weapon which could operate from space.
The value of the weapon has not been proven, but if it turns out to be
feasible, some predict it would revolutionize warfare as much as did
the invention of gunpowder. The Soviets also are developing a laser
weapon.
    If the laser is built, the shuttle will put it into space and
maintain it.
    Space shuttles will also be used to deliver to orbit the various
types of military satellites which are now part of the nation's
strategic plans.
    Most NASA officials feel that the military need for the shuttle
virtually assures that the planned fleet of four will be developed.
    Reagan's budget proposal also provides some early funds for studies
of where the space program will go after the shuttle fleet is fully
operational.
    Christopher C. Kraft, director of the Johnson Space Center, and
others favor development of some type of orbiting space station that
would enable the United States to have permanent presence in orbit.
Such a facility would make it possible to conduct Earth observations,
zero gravity manufacturing and the assembly of spacecraft for voyages
into deep space. Such platforms would also have a valuable military
function, particularly if the laser weapon is developed.
    ''NASA is ready to be challenged again with those kinds of things,''
said Kraft. ''We have to convince Congress.''
    Persuading Congress to provide funds to meet dreams of space
visionaries means proving that space exploration is not only important
for the military, but also for purposes of peace. And that is a major
facet of NASA's new era.
    ''We've got to make space exploration pay off for all of us down
here on Earth - not just for us space cadets, but for everyone,'' said
Kraft.
    Instead of being but a spinoff of pure space exploration, commercial
products and services from space will be the first consideration and
space exploration will be second, believes Kraft.
    ''We will get to go to Jupiter, for instance, because we have first
built a system to benefit people on Earth,'' said Kraft. ''It's the
exact reverse of the old concepts.
    ''Space may provide us the balance of trade 20 years from now. We'll
make better products in space, and provide worldwide communications
and seek out vital new Earth resources,'' he adds. ''You can see it
coming. This thing (the commercial use of space) is really going to
take off.''
    End Advance Sunday March 28
    
ap-ny-03-26 2233EST
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Mar-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #145    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 145

Today's Topics:
		       Advanced Rockets and SSTO's
			  Re: Shuttle Visibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 1982 1614-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Advanced Rockets and SSTO's
To: space at MIT-MC

I went to an interesting presentation last night about a new rocket
idea called the Dual Expander rocket engine.  The idea is this: most
of the mass of propellant in a rocket is burned during the first
parts of the launch.  As it turns out, if you want to build a single stage
to orbit vehicle the fuel burned during the first part should NOT
be chosen for high exhaust velocity, but rather for high propellant
density.  Specifically, we should use hydrocarbons (like propane, methane
or kerosene) instead of hydrogen.

The dual expander rocket engine burns both hydrocarbons (propane) and 
hydrogen.  It is essentially an engine within an engine.  The interior
engine burns propane and LOX during the first part of the launch with
a chamber pressure of 6000 psia.  It is surrounded by an annular combustion
chamber where hydrogen and LOX are burned.  This outer chamber has a
smaller aperature than the space shuttle main engine, so a smaller
nozzle is needed.  When the center engine is shut down it generates
far less thrust than the SSME, but at that point you don't need much thrust.
The eignine has a top thrust of 1/2 of the SSME, but weighs 1/3 as much.

The speaker presented several designs using the engines.  The first
is an upgraded shuttle.  The SRB's are removed, and the main tank is
enlarged to include a propane tank and extra LH and LOX.  On the bottom
of the tank goes a cluster of (eight?) dual expander engines.  Both
the tank and the orbiter are placed in a stable orbit.  The engines are
removed from the tank and returned inside the shuttle.  If you want
a real heavy lift vehicle, put the SRB's back on.  I forget the exact
figures but this thing lifts well over 100,000 lbs. of payload.  And
you have a tank in orbit to play with.

A one man Air Force shuttle was also described.  It is much smaller
than the space shuttle.  Depending on the exact design, it can be launched
from a C5A or from the ground.  It uses two dual expander engines
and strap on propane tanks that get left in orbit.

Next, several commercial SSTO's.  Three designs were given, the smallest
smaller than the space shuttle, the largest weighing 10,000,000 lb.
and having 29 (!) engines.

The speaker also showed how you can take the proposed airforce shuttle,
put it on an upgraded space shuttle tank and get a vehicle capable
of getting to geosynchronous orbit and back again.  Another proposed
design used LEO refueling from an ordinary shuttle.

The last and most practical design is a disposable SSTO unmanned booster.
It has two dual expanders.  On top goes a second stage that propels the
payload to geosynchronous orbit.  It could carry over 6000 lbs. of payload.
The kicker is this: the first stage is ~14 feet in diameter by 50 some
odd feet long.  These numbers should ring a bell, because the shuttle
cargo bay is 15'x60', making this a "fully reusable disposable".  Final
note on this thing: it can be air-launched from the back of a 747!  This
would avoid dynamic pressure problems.  Launch procedure involves putting
the 747 into a 45 degree climb at 30,000 feet, igniting the rocket and
pulling negative g's to get away.  Boeing is examining putting a SSME
in the tail of a 747 (!) to get it higher.  The launch altitude then
becomes something like 50,000 or 60,000 feet.  This last idea has been
looked at by SAC already; in the 60's they considered putting a Titan
engine in the tail of a B52 to get it away from the field quickly: said
vehicle could be at 30,000 feet 30 miles from the runway in 1 minute!

I hope they get to develope the engine.  It uses no really new
technology.  The speaker claimed it could be developed in 4-5 years at
a cost of $400M (1980).   He works for Aerojet (the company
responsible for this thing) so he isn't unbiased.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 1982 21:13:51-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Re: Shuttle Visibility

   If the shuttle is within 150 miles due south of DC it's less than 500
miles south of Boston; at that distance an object <32 miles up is above
the theoretical horizon. The additional 100+ miles of shuttle elevation
would put it some distance above the horizon, although it would not be
that close or that high for long.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #146    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 146

Today's Topics:
			     Food for thought
			       Mailing list
			       tv coverage
			       shuttle vis
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 1982 at 1258-CST
From: knutson at UTEXAS-11 
Subject: Food for thought
To: space at mit-ai

Now that the shuttle has flown approximately 6 million miles has
anyone ever sat down and calculated what kind of gas milage it
has been getting?
-------

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 1982 2112-EST
From: J. Scott Hamilton <G.HAMMY at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Mailing list
To: space at MIT-MC

	I am a lowly freshman trying to expand his horizons (no pun intended).
Could you please put me on your mailing list.  Thanks

						Hammy
-------

------------------------------

From: DWO@MIT-AI
Date: 04/01/82 01:21:02
Subject: tv coverage

DWO@MIT-AI 04/01/82 01:21:02 Re: tv coverage
To: SPACE at MIT-AI
the shuttle one launch was covered live on the hbo channel without
any commentary.  only the downlink, uplink, and the "voice of
shuttle control" was heard.  in my view, that is perfect coverage
for those of us who are technically inclined.  unfortunately, since
then, hbo has begun 24 hour-a-day programming, precluding the use
of its transponder for such special events.  however, as long as
public interest remains reasonably high in shuttle launches, this
seems like a natural programming selection for c-span, the cable channel
that airs the house of representatives and other public interest
programming.  of course eventually, the ultimate would be the "space
channel", with 24 hour-a-day space coverage, uninterupted except
during periods when no shuttle was flying or those that were were out of
contact with houston( or colorado springs! ).  for now though,
is there anyone on the list with connections who would be able to put a bug in c-span's ear?

------------------------------

From: DWO@MIT-AI
Date: 04/01/82 01:37:09
Subject: shuttle vis

DWO@MIT-AI 04/01/82 01:37:09 Re: shuttle vis
To: SPACE at MIT-AI
not only does the shuttle have to appear above the horizon to be visable,
but it must do so while the observer and most of the atmosphere above him
are in darkness, but the shuttle is still illuminated.  this is a rather
rare event for objects in low earth orbit, and is even more so when
you constrain it by the observer's location and weather conditions.
this should explain the paucity of suitable viewing locations and times
promulgated by nasa.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #147    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 147

Today's Topics:
		      Long article on Shuttle Usage
		       Cosmic Microwave Anisotropy
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #146
			       shuttle vis
		       Another source of hydrogen?
			       Peace Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 01 Apr 1982 1015-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Long article on Shuttle Usage
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a007  2221  30 Mar 82
PM-Shuttle-Cargoes, Bjt,710
No Room on Shuttle until September 1987
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - NASA expects the successful third test
of Columbia to generate more customer interest in the space shuttle,
but no one need apply for a flight until after September 1987.
    The 70 flights until then are fully booked with communications,
weather and military satellites, space probes, planetary missions,
science labs, and materials-processing payloads.
    The space agency is now working on manifests to accommodate those
who want to launch payloads in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Many
have expressed an interest since the shuttle began flying a year ago.
    Columbia's third flight, which ended Tuesday, ''advanced the shuttle
a significant step toward operational missions,'' said flight
director Neil Hutchinson. After one more test flight, scheduled for
late June, the spacecraft will be ready.
    The final shakedown flight is set to last seven days. It is to land
at a dry lake bed at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., providing the
final confidence for bringing the ship back to a 15,000-foot concrete
runway near the Cape Canaveral launch site. Edwards was washed out by
rain for Flight 3 and Columbia returned to another desert runway at
White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
    In the cargo bay for the fourth flight will be a classified Defense
Department payload, reportedly testing infrared sensors for a future
spy satellite.
    Asked about secrecy surrounding that package, NASA's Glynn Lunney
said Monday: ''We're flying a DOD payload. Other than that I won't say
anything about it, per our arrangement with them. We will fly a lot
of DOD payloads, and we'll tell you the same thing on each.''
    Twenty-five of those 70 flights have been reserved by the Pentagon
to carry up reconnaissance, military communications, navigation and
other satellites and to test space weapons such as laser beams.
    Columbia's first commercial flight is set for Nov. 11, the cargo a
pair of communications satellites to be lofted into orbit for
Satellite Business Systems Inc. and Telesat of Canada.
    Meanwhile, the second shuttle, Challenger, is to make its debut next
Jan. 20, hauling into space a large tracking and data-relay
satellite, one of two that will provide almost constant communications
between spaceships and Mission Control in Houston, eliminating the
need for most of NASA's expensive network of ground stations.
    Lunney said Challenger could be launched in December, but its
satellite and a new lightweight external fuel tank probably won't be
ready.
    Four shuttles are being built, and the space agency and Pentagon
will ask later this year for money to start a fifth. The Discovery is
to be flying in January 1984 and the Atlantis in April 1985.
    The cost of renting a cargo bay for a single flight is $35 million
until 1985, when the prices will increase to about $50 million. If
there is more than one user, they split the cost. A user can launch a
payload on the shuttle for as little as a fourth of the cost on
conventional throwaway rockets.
    The first of several Spacelab launches is set for Sept. 30, 1983.
Spacelab will serve as a reusable laboratory for as many as four
scientists or medical experts. A huge space telescope will be orbited
from Challenger and the Galileo space probe will be dispatched from
Atlantis, both in 1985.
    The Air Force is building a second shuttle launch complex at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Discovery is to use it first,
hauling a military satellite into orbit on Oct. 25, 1985, according to
the current schedule.
    That schedule calls for two more launches in 1982, six in 1983, 11
in 1984, 16 in 1985, 18 in 1986 and 16 through Sept. 15, 1987.
    NASA later this year will request funds to start development of a
space station to be used for scientific, military and industrial
projects. The shuttle, capable of lifting up to 65,000 pounds in its
bay, would be the ferry ship for building materials, construction
workers and station occupants.
    Christopher C. Kraft, director of NASA's Johnson Space Center in
Houston, said if money is approved for the project in fiscal year
1984, ''we could have a basic modular station up in seven to eight
years.''
    Kraft predicted the present shuttle design will be flying for 30
years. Each of the vehicles is designed for 100 roundtrips into orbit.
    ''By 1990 we might start thinking about a follow-on vehicle,'' he
said. ''We could probably develop a derivitive of the shuttle that
would lift 200,000 pounds.''

------------------------------

Date: Wed Mar 31 20:52:12 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!npois!harpo!mhtsa!allegra!green at Berkeley
Subject: Cosmic Microwave Anisotropy
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


	Today I heard a colloquium by Ed Cheng, a member of the Princeton
group that has measured the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background.
The results so far can be summarized as follows:
	Three groups, Berkeley, Princeton, and Florence, have measured
a dipole moment in the background.  All three agree on this measurement.
	Of these groups, the first two have measurements covering enough of
the sky to report on the quadrupole moment.  These two groups disagree
significantly on the quadropole moment.  The difficulty in the quadrupole
moment lies in the contribution of the galaxy.  (The galaxy does not
affect the dipole measurements because the dipole effect is relatively 
large and because the galaxy as viewed from here has little dipole moment).
Errors in how the contribution of the galaxy are handled could explain
the measured quadrupole moment.  The final word on whether there is
a quadrupole moment awaits more sensitive experiments.
	Leaving Ed's talk, I would like to comment on the fact that 
the microwave radiation does not establish an absolute or preferred
rest frame, any more than does the earth or the sun or the galaxy.
It is merely the rest frame of a larger object than any other object
we have measured.
			Jim Green

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 1982 17:54 PST
From: jackson at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #146
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 01 Apr 1982 0302-PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: jackson

In response to what to do with the "Space Channel" when there is no shuttle: 
How about showing the pictures from the weather satellites.  There is very little
on TV that could compete with a view of Earth from on high.

stephen

------------------------------

Date: 2 April 1982 03:36-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: shuttle vis
To: DWO at MIT-AI
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Shuttle is hard to see, but here in Calif when we go hiking in
the mountains we are likely to see several satellites each night
around twilight.  Of course that lasts fairly long at 8000 feet.

------------------------------

Date: 2 April 1982 03:54-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Another source of hydrogen?
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Recall that most materials we'll need for space industry and
life-support are already known to exist on the moon, but hydrogen may
be hard to find locally. We've suggested the polar regions of the Moon
which might have water-ice, the outer surface of the Moon which may
have atoms of hydrogen from the solar wind accumulated over 4 billion
years, and more distant sources such as asteroids comets and Jupiter.

Here's a new idea I came up with tonight: Once we get an SPS working,
suppose we build two large electrodes and charge one positive and the
other negative. Then free electrons will be attracted to the positive
one and free protons to the negative one. The electrons merely flow
through our circuit where they combine with the protons to form
hydrogen which we then collect somehow. Thus instead of collecting
atomic hydrogen, we collect hydrogen which has been ionized by the
solar ultraviolet radiation (plus some stray protons). Anybody want to
speculate on whether this idea could be made to work cost-effectively?

One idea for collecting the hydrogen after the protons have been
grabbed: If the protons embed themselves in the surface of the
negative electrode, we may simply run the device for a while to
collect a considerable quantity of embedded hydrogen, then turn the
device off, cover the electrode with something (to make a sealed
chamber with the electrode as one wall), zap the electrode with a
laser to boil off the hydrogen, collect the hydrogen from the chamber
in any of the ways suggested earlier for boiling hydrogen off the
surface of the moon, then remove the cover and turn the electric
charge back on to collect another batch. Anybody have other ideas?
<brainstorm mode>

------------------------------

Date: 2 April 1982 04:06-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Peace Games
To: frye at BBN-UNIX
cc: ARMS-D at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

Re effect on national governments, you may have something there,
perhaps if more of us played peace instead of war games, the Generals
would play peace instead of war with each other. Maybe we should make
a fantasy space-exploration game, where everybody pretends to have
various expertise, and we all cooperate to pretend to develop space
industry, and we are only allowed to use powers within our area of
expertise, but we are allowed to freely "invent" plausable solutions
to technical problems in our area of expertise and then pretend they
are real and follow thru on what comes next (like I might pretend I've
discovered ice on the moon, in a polar valley, and then I'd proceed to
ask the pretend-engineers to design me a way of extracting it and
sending the hydrogen to where it's needed in the equatorial colony).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #148    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 148

Today's Topics:
			 Building a space station
		       Cosmic Microwave Anisotropy
			   Shuttle future plans
			   lousy radio coverage
			      Re: John Glenn
		     Re: Shuttle Plants and Security
		   Bruce Murray resigns as Head of JPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri Apr  2 00:52:11 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley
Subject: Building a space station
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Currently the external tanks on the shuttle are burning up in the atmosphere,
I recall.  I seem to also recall hearing of plans for the eminently sensible
idea of releasing these things late enough so that they stay in space for
several years to come.
Those tanks are ideal space station construction material as far as I
see.  They are big, round and can obviously take pressure and temperature
extremes (lox and hydrogen!).
They are probably not too bad on stress either considering the Gs they take,
so they could even be strung in a circle or star and rotated for artificial
gravity.  The tanks are big enough to fit plenty of labs and comfortable
living quarters in, and one goes up with every shuttle.

Is this possible?  When are the tanks released?  How much would the shuttle
lose keeping them attached until orbit is reached?  Could a small booster
(could be solid fuel even) be attached to these babies to be fired once
they are relased to push them up a good distance from the atmosphere.
By the end of the decade, there could be several dozen tanks in space ready
to be inhabited.  If NASA wants a space station in 1990, this is the way
to do it.

We are all familiar with the effects that weightlessness has on astronauts
over extended periods, in particular the decay of bone.  Eventually there
should be a study of the effects of artificial gravity (centrifugal effect)
over extended periods of time.  I suspect the shuttle could bring up a cargo
looking like this:

____________                                                ____________
|           \                                              /           |
|           |==============================================|           |
|           /                                              \           |
------------                                                ------------
where there is a big cable between the canisters and the thing is spun
around the center.  Astronauts sit in the canisters with weight (real toilets)
and perform experiments at the same time as being them.

------------------------------

Date: Wed Mar 31 20:50:01 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: duke!harpo!mhtsa!allegra!green at Berkeley
Subject: Cosmic Microwave Anisotropy
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


<quad

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 1982 0619-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Shuttle future plans
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: Space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 2-Apr-82 06:19:08.WMARTIN>

As each new shuttle vehicle is constructed, will it go through a
single or series of cargo-less shakedown flight(s)?  Or will its
initial flight be a production run, carrying cargo?

When, if ever, is it scheduled or predicted for there to be more
than one shuttle vehicle in orbit at the same time?  Will this be
some sort of joint flight, where these vehicles are in proximity
for some purpose, or will they just happen to be working up there
at the same time, and maybe be on opposite sides of the planet?

I heartily endorse the concept of a "space channel"; I would for
now settle for a shortwave radio broadcast going on constantly
covering the audio traffic on the main communications channel
between vehicles in flight/orbit and the main control site,
Houston or wherever.  I would think that the VOA (Voice of
America) could score a propaganda coup by such worldwide coverage
and it would be at minimal cost -- just tying up a transmitter
and antenna (one frequency at a time will suffice) and an audio
link out of NASA to the transmitter site.  Wouldn't need any
announcer or commentary, so that expense could be avoided.  It
sure seems to be all reward and no disadvantage, as far as I can
see.

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: Thu Apr  1 15:02:32 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: harpo!npois!houxi!houxe!lime!we13!rjr at Berkeley
Subject: lousy radio coverage
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


        What is it with these network  announcers  that  are  in
        love with their own voices?

        To catch the launching and the landing  of  Columbia,  a
        few  of  us  listened  to the events as broadcast on CBS
        radio. The announcer's audio was mixed with equal  level
        with  the  audio  from  the cape and resulted in a mess.
        The CBS guy kept trying to talk over the  live  material
        and  ended  up  repeating everything he covered up. What
        confusion. Why can't those clowns just  comment  on  the
        things that are not obvious?

					we13.rjr

------------------------------

Date: Fri Apr  2 13:19:03 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: harpo!uwvax!orc at Berkeley
Subject: Re: John Glenn
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


	Does this sort of stuff belong *anywhere* near net.space? I would love
to reply to anti-freedon-of-garbage, but it DOES'NT BELONG HERE.
				Thanks
					orc@uwisc

------------------------------

Date: Fri Apr  2 15:06:39 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!houxi!houxt!govern at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Shuttle Plants and Security
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I once read a US Govt reprint (now lost) of a Russian paper called
"The Life of an Onion, Not Knowing Down from Up".  Conclusion was that
plants generally need gravity to know where to send roots and where
to send leaves; light wasn't enough, and the plants tended to get
confused and die.  However, a small electrical field provided enough
information for the plant to choose a "down" and an "up", and grow
successfully.  One technique used in the study was putting the seeds, dirt,
light source, etc. in a container which was turned over every 10 seconds
or so -- this was the cheapest available substitute for zero-gravity,
since the cost of the real thing would have been too high.

------------------------------

Date: Fri Apr  2 19:46:57 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: harpo!mhtsa!allegra!phr at Berkeley
Subject: Bruce Murray resigns as Head of JPL
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Bruce Murray, 50, has notified Caltech that he will step down
later this year as director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The announcement came at the very start of Murray's seventh
year as JPL head, a pos he took April 1, 1976.  He recently
has been involved in guiding JPL through a financial crisis
caused by funding cuts in deep space exploration by the
federal government.
   The date of his departure has not been determined, and no new
director has been named.  Murray says he plans to travel with
his wife, Suzanne, and also undertake some writing.

	[from AP-NR-04-02 1529EST]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #149    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 149

Today's Topics:
			Winds Delay Return to KSC
		      Re: Another source of hydrogen
			 Re: Shuttle future plans
			 Weather Turnaround at WS
		     Re: Shuttle Plants and Security
		       update on fruit fly in space
				    ||
		      Shuttle Work Ahead of Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri Apr  2 17:48:05 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!houxi!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Winds Delay Return to KSC
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


High winds, gusting up to 50 knots, stopped all operations on
the Columbia today, and set back the transfer to KSC by at
least two days, to 9 April.  Most all of the minor jobs have
been done, but the assembly of the tail-cone (and its mounting
on the shuttle) and the mating of the shuttle to a 747 (scheduled
to arrive at White Sands on Monday) require winds at no more
than 8 knots.

------------------------------

Date: Fri Apr  2 12:22:14 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!ARPAVAX.CAD.teklabs!tekmdp!dadlaB!dadlaA!steve at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Another source of hydrogen
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I am posting this because I have heard that mail from USENET doesn't
make it onto ARPANET correctly.

REM@MIT-MC suggested using free electrons from a negatively charged
electrode and free protons from a positively charged electrode to
make hydrogen for a space city.

Sorry - you don't understand the physics of the situation. A positively
charged electrode has less than its normal complement of electrons. It
doesn't have free protons. Hadrons don't pull the kind of stunts that
leptons do about wandering around. In essence you are suggesting using
a simple battery to induce fission of low-atomic-weight elements. Far
more energy than that is necessary....

	Steve Den Beste

------------------------------

Date: Fri Apr  2 18:14:49 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Shuttle future plans
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


In response to your question of shake down flight(s), Challenger
is scheduled to make its debut in January, 1983.  I believe it
is scheduled to deploy one or more satellites.

------------------------------

Date: Fri Apr  2 22:05:49 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Weather Turnaround at WS
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


The weather at White Sands underwent a complete turnaround tonight,
and workers rushed back to the area where the Columbia is parked.
Now, instead of delaying Wednesday's takeoff to KSC until Friday,
officials say they might even make it by Tuesday.  If weather holds,
the tail cone could be assembled and attached by tomorrow night, and
the shuttle could be hoisted on the 747 Sunday or Monday.  Officials
won't know until Monday when the takeoff will occur.

-----------------------
In other news, Bruce Murray, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
for the past six years, has announced that he will step down from that
post at the end of this year.  No new director has yet been named.

------------------------------

Date: 3 April 1982 14:34-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Shuttle Plants and Security
To: harpo!floyd!vax135!houxi!houxt!govern at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Hmmm, a good experiment for shuttle, now that we have this USSR info,
would be to try growing seeds both in zero-gee and
zero-gee-with-electric-field and compare the results. Doing just
zero-gee without any field would seem to be a waste of shuttle space.
Does anybody have more info about the plant-growing experiment(s)
being planned in the orbiter?

------------------------------

Date: 3 April 1982 14:36-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

I've heard nothing about that stowaway fruit-fly since the first day
when the local station made a dumb joke about spraying it with
malathion (it wasn't even a medfly, it was a Florida fruitfly). I
guess I'll search the news services. But meanwhile has anybody else
heard anything about that fruitfly?

------------------------------

Date: 3 April 1982 15:09-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  update on fruit fly in space
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

I searched AP/NYT but all I could find was one sentence that the fruit
fly dissappeared shortly after being discovered, nothing on whether it
was ever seen again during the flight (presumably not) or whether the
ground crew found it later.

------------------------------

Date:  3 April 1982 1600-EST (Saturday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Subject:  ||
CC: watmath!bstempleton at UCB-C70
In-Reply-To:  Ted Anderson's message of 3 Apr 82 06:02-EST
Message-Id: <03Apr82 160020 DS30@CMU-10A>

There was a discussion of using the external tank about a year ago.
Martin Marietta (maker of the ET) is looking into ways to utilize the
tanks.  The reason the ET is dropped short of orbit is to avoid the
Skylab syndrome.  The OMS burns required to boost the shuttle the rest
of the way into orbit amount to about 300 mph, so it is clear that the
tank could be taken into orbit, too.

------------------------------

Date: Sat Apr  3 16:39:56 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!houxi!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Work Ahead of Schedule
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Work on the Columbia jumped ahead of schedule today, and
officials say that the attachment of the tail cone to the
shuttle may come tomorrow.  If that occurs, the mating to
the 747, now scheduled to land at White Sands tomorrow instead
of Monday on the same strip as the shuttle, could take place
on Monday afternoon.  By Monday, NASA hopes to have a definite
take off date and time for the shuttle's return to KSC.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #150    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 150

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Another source of hydrogen
		       ET as space station material
		     Saving the shuttle external tank
			  Shuttle Being Readied
		     Re: Another source of hydrogen?
		     Florida Shuttle Relay Frequency
		     Florida Shuttle Relay Correction
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 April 1982 06:18-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Another source of hydrogen
To: ucbvax!ARPAVAX.CAD.teklabs!tekmdp!dadlaB!dadlaA!steve at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I don't understand your message at all. The solar wind is mostly
hydrogen, both atomic and ionized (protons and electrons). All I
suggested was that we harvest the protons (and to keep things
balanced, an equal number of electrons). The protons are attracted to
the negative electrode, where they lose their charge and remain
embedded in the surface of the electrode. Where did you get the idea I
was fissioning nuclii? I'm merely using solar UV to ionize hydrogen
molecules (it happens already) and harvesting the resultant free
protons (new).

------------------------------

Date:  4 April 1982 17:05 est
From:  Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  ET as space station material
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 4 April 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson

We went over this some months ago right in this mailing list.  I thought
the final word was that there is so much noxious residue in the ET that
it wasn't worth the effort of neutralizing it to make the material fit
for human re-use of any type?

------------------------------

Date:  4 Apr 1982 1716-EST
From: Roger H. Goun <G.ROGER at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Saving the shuttle external tank
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 3-Apr-82 0602-EST

I heard Gerald K O'Neill (a major proponent of the High Frontier concept)
lecture at MIT last year.  The plan he outlined for the exploitation and
colonization of space depended on the use of the shuttle external tank as
building material.

As I recall, O'Neill claimed that the shuttle could place it's tank in LEO
at a loss of only 3% of it's cargo capacity.  Can anyone confirm or refute
this figure?

					-- Roger

------------------------------

Date: Sun Apr  4 19:17:13 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Being Readied
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Final work on the shuttle was being carried out today, and it
is scheduled to be bolted to a 747 from midnight until 0800
tomorrow.  If all goes well, takeoff for KSC could occur any time
from as early as Monday afternoon on.

------------------------------

Date: Sat Apr  3 22:09:30 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: watmath!dthedmonds at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Another source of hydrogen?
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

Re: the electrode collection method.

The design sounds like a low-power affair....if you turn the power up
too high you're going to end up with the world's largest X-ray tube.
Or have I dropped a digit somewhere?

------------------------------

Date: Sun Apr 4 20:53:48 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: duke!mcnc!unc!dopey.jl at Berkeley
Subject: Florida Shuttle Relay Frequency
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

At the launch I heard the air-to-ground communications relayed at 170 MHz
(plus or minus 1 MHz) on a Sears multi-band radio.  Pilots were advised
to tune to 110.0 MHz or 273.5 MHz after the launch for reports on
location and drift of exhaust cloud, but I didn't listen in.

------------------------------

Date: Sun Apr 4 22:50:39 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: harpo!duke!mcnc!unc!dopey.jl at Berkeley
Subject: Florida Shuttle Relay Correction
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.



Oops, air-to-ground relay at KSC was at 117 MHz, not 170 MHz.  Sorry.

------------------------------

From: MIYATA@MIT-AI
Date: 04/05/82 02:19:24

MIYATA@MIT-AI 04/05/82 02:19:24
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
I have periodically read your digest and would like to be placed on
the distribution.  If this should have been sent elsewhere, please
forward or reply to me. 

thanks. gaylord miyata @MIT-AI

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Apr-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #151    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 151

Today's Topics:
		     Shuttle external tank discussion
			  heavily loaded shuttle
			  What noxious residue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  5 Apr 1982 1026-EST
From: Jon Webb <WEBB at CMU-20C>
Subject: Shuttle external tank discussion
To: space at MIT-MC

Could someone who knows where they are go through the SPACE archive
files and provide pointers to the discussion of a few months ago.
I think all the questions being brought up now were discussed 
extensively not long ago, and I don't see the point of discussing them
again.

Jon

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 5 April 1982  08:06-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: heavily loaded shuttle
To: space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	Anyone know if there are plans to launch and land the fourth
shuttle test flight "heavy" (full cargo)?  Seems to me they've been
launching with very light cargos.  
	I presume the weight limitation is launch weight.  How much
landing weight is the vehicle "stressed" for?

						Dick

------------------------------

Date:  5 April 1982 1051-EST (Monday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  What noxious residue?
CC: space at mit-mc
Message-Id: <05Apr82 105123 DS30@CMU-10A>

The ET carries liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.  What is so noxious
about that?

The shuttle orbiter itself does use noxious propellants, in the form
of hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide for the OMS and attitude control
rockets.  These are carried in the orbiter, not the ET.  They
explain the caution with which ground personnel approach the orbiter
after landing -- from the right direction, clothed in protective
garb, and using a wind machine.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #152    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 152

Today's Topics:
		       Shuttle to Take Off Tomorrow
				  QUERY
			   using shuttle tanks
			  heavily loaded shuttle
			    shuttle insurance
		       recent L5 conference in L.A.
			   Shuttle Back at KSC
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon Apr  5 17:41:00 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: ucbvax!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle to Take Off Tomorrow
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Winds forced a five hour delay in the mating of the Columbia to
its 747, and that forced officials to abandon hopes for takeoff
today for KSC.  Plans now call for the shuttle to take off at
0900 EST tomorrow and land at Cape Canaveral at 1600 EST.

------------------------------

Date: Mon Apr  5 23:09:40 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: harpo!uwvax!doug at Berkeley
Subject: QUERY
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.



			Columbia Stats Query

	I don't know if the info I'm looking for has been in this journal
before.  I need some data for a program a student of mine is writing.  Does
someone out there know:
	
	a)  the mass of the columbia
	b)  the total cross sectional area of it looking up or down at it
	c)  it's speed upon entry to the atmosphere
	d)  the time of flight from entry until landing
	e)  the angle from the horozontal at which it enters
	f)  the horozontal velocity at which it lands
	g)  any equations regarding its acceleration as a function of
	    air speed or time of flight

	    thanks

------------------------------

Date: Mon Apr  5 18:50:36 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: using shuttle tanks
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


NASA has studied a number of ways of making productive use of Shuttle
external tanks, including using them as the hull(s) for a space station.
It's plausible.  The major problem is getting the tank all the way into
orbit.  The shuttle can take the tank up with it at a cost of about 10%
of its payload.  BUT, the resulting orbit is too low for something big
and light like the tank to stay up long.  Getting the tank into an orbit
high enough to bring the air drag down is more expensive.  Attaching
solids and the like to the tank is counterproductive in most cases, since
the Shuttle main engines are considerably more efficient, and are better
used directly (as opposed to using them to haul less-efficient engines
into orbit).

Aside from these hassles, the major problem with using tanks as the
hulls for a station is that they are rather large, and the station
designs being contemplated for starters are smaller.  Turning a tank
into a station hull also involves a great deal of in-orbit work, and it
will be a while yet before this sort of thing is routinely contemplated.

------------------------------

Date: 6 April 1982 08:59-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: heavily loaded shuttle
To: KING at KESTREL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Good idea. Maybe the top-secret military satellite is full weight?
If not, wonder if the military would mind adding extra dead-weight?

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 6 April 1982  11:02-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: shuttle insurance
To: space at mit-mc, poli-sci at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	I remember reading a few months back that some private company
in Princeton, N. J. was thinking of buying the fifth Space Shuttle.
Does anyone out there know whether the insurance industry is capable
of insuring against a single event (the crash of the Shuttle) for $1.5
billion?

						Dick

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 82 22:56-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
To: space at mc
Subject: recent L5 conference in L.A.

The conference was a success and another is planned for next year in
some place like Orlando or Houston.  There were about 750 people.  The
opening night lecture was by Norm Dalkey of UCLA, on the Delphi
procedures for expert polling and predicting.  

The highlight of the conference was a closing speech by Robert
Heinlein about his nightmare of black boxes (unmanned probes) meeting
and repopulating the universe after the extinction of Man who refused
to probe space himself.

Here's a list of the panels.  The quoted story titles below refer to
the Heinlein stories of the same names.

"IF THIS GOES ON-"
	Future U.S. space plans to 2000 A.D.
Space Stations and Platforms
	Skylab, Salyut, what next?
Solar Power Satellites
	New technical approaches to the SPS designs
Non-Terrestrial Resources
	Known non-terrestrial resources, methods for prospecting
	and surveying them, and material processing
"THE LONG WATCH"
	Possibilities and plans for future military activities
	in space
The Military Geography of Space
	G. Harry Stine discussed the new military arena, the distances
	and physics involved in the Earth-Moon system and the impossibility
	of preventing the military move into space
"THE MAN WHO SOLD THE MOON"
	areas of development for private enterprise and the financial
	and regulartory tools necessary for such development to occur
The Politics of Space
	influencing the political space process through education,
	information, and lobbying
The Space Transportation System
	technical status of the Shuttle based on the results of its
	flights
"HAVE SPACE SUIT -- WILL TRAVEL"
	a new fabric-reinforced, rubber-bag construction for space suit
	technology promises to speed space development and EVA
"BLOWUPS HAPPEN"
	panel of development engineers who have experienced the
	spectacular blowups during rocket development
Space Laws and Treaties
	Moon treaty, other laws and treaties regarding space
Living in Space
	effect of isolation in space on humans, both psychological and
	sociological
Exotic Space Transportation
	light (laser) sails, vertical mass driver, fusion bomb ships, 
	ram jets, etc.
"FARMER IN THE SKY"
	the potential of terraforming Mars & Venus
Future Space Transportation
	advantages and limitations of rocket propulsion, mass drivers,
	light sails, etc.
Solving International Problems Throught Space
	communication & earth-resource satellites and future opportunities
Space and the Public
	education programs, media coverage, and grassroots space organizations
	with roles to play in educating the public
Space Art
	current space art, forms possible only in space
Space Industrialization
	industrial manufacturing in space, the economics involved
"WALDO"
	Minsky talked about man-machine systems and remote automation in
	space
"BEYOND THIS HORIZON"
	space plans for the next century and beyond

------------------------------

Date: Tue Apr  6 19:42:47 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Back at KSC
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


After 15 days at White Sands, 3 longer than STS-2 stayed at Edwards,
the Columbia touched down at the 15,000 runway at KSC today at 1528
EST.  Immediately, its 747 taxied to a demating device, and, over the
next 20 hours, it will be removed from the plane.  It should be in
its hangar by Wednesday, and then the inspections and work on it will
begin, starting with the inspection of the 38 missing tiles and the
rebonding of 1200 more.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #153    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 153

Today's Topics:
			Shuttle Experiment Ruined
		     program of recent L5 conference
			 Who insures the Shuttle?
			    Shuttle Now in OPF
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed Apr  7 07:27:29 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Experiment Ruined
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

An experiment with blood and kidney cells in space has been mostly
ruined on Earth.  The experiment proceeded very well in space, but
when it got to Earth, its freezer malfunctioned, the cells thawed
out, and most of the data was lost.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 1982 10:40:26-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: program of recent L5 conference

   If the program really did use "If This Goes On---" to cover space
developments up to 2000 AD, whoever put it together didn't bother reading
the story, which is set over a hundred years in the future and tells of
the overthrow of a theocratic dictatorship. I don't even recall any true
rockets (although someone makes a getaway in a high-performance jet at
one point).

------------------------------

Date:  7 Apr 1982 1539-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Who insures the Shuttle?
To: space at MIT-MC

	Lloyds of London, of course! They wil insure damn near  ANYTHING
(and will charge premiums to fit). $1.5 billion seems a bit high, but it
should be possible  as soon  as the STS  has a  good operational  safety
record.

------------------------------

Date: Wed Apr  7 17:42:35 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Now in OPF
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


At 1105 EST, Columbia made it through the doors of the Orbiter
Processing Facility, where it will stay about 6 weeks for refurbishment.
The first item on the list is the removal and cleansing of the
OMS pods, and of course, rebonding of tiles.  Then the shuttle will
be moved to the Vehicle Assembly Building where it will be mated
with an external tank and two new SRB's.  Target date for STS-4 is
27 June.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 1982 01:10:14-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley

It would be easier to use solids carried up in the bay of the Shuttle
to boost the external tanks alone to higher orbit, because the use of
additional tanks of liquid fuel inside the Shuttle would require boosting
all the dead weight of the Shuttle for each external tank.

Enlarging the external tank requires a reconfiguration of the Shuttle exterior
and development; so liquid fuel to boost the tank into a higher orbit
should not be carried up outside the orbiter in the tank.  Since the
alternative of putting liquid inside the Shuttle wastes payload capacity,
solids carried inside the bay and later attached to the external tank
is the best way to get the external tank into higher orbit.

Two studies that describe methods of converting and using the external
tank are 1. In NASA SP-428 2. An OASIS document on this.  It's not
much harder than building an apartment.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #154    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 154

Today's Topics:
			Buyers for a Fifth Shuttle
		   Unmentioned difficulty on Mission 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu Apr  8 07:23:45 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!harpo!ihnss!houxi!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Buyers for a Fifth Shuttle
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


A group of investors has proposed to NASA to pay $1 billion for
cargo rights if a fifth space shuttle is built.  NASA is seriously
thinking about this, but they say that they must sell Congress on
it first.  The investors would then sell of space on their shuttle
to other firms.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 1982 1943-EST (Thursday)
From: jnc at mit-csr
Reply-to: JNC@MIT-XX
Subject: Unmentioned difficulty on Mission 1
To: space at mc
CC: jnc

	From Av Week (April 5, p 19, article about reentry test data):

	"At this point in the entry, Lousma flew Columbia manually
into an 80 deg right bank to establish the spacecraft on its roll
reversal schedule. He flew a manual maneuver to maintain a 3 deg/sec
roll rate, compared with 5 deg for the automatic system. The auto roll
rate caused a bank overshoot and roll oscillation at this point on
MIssion 1."

	Does anyone remembver hearing about this before? It sounds pretty
tame, they way the put it, but that 'roll oscillation' at Mach 24 and
254,000 feet on re-entry must have been pretty wild.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Apr-82  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #155    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 155

Today's Topics:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu Apr  8 10:00:50 1982
From: decvax!pur-ee!coleman at Berkeley
To: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley

I am a sophmore E.E. @ Purdue,
could you please put me on your mailing list.
!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #156    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 156

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V2 #153    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Friday, 9 April 1982  08:32-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
To: cc.clyde at utexas-20
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #153    

	My point is that the insurance company has to have a
capatilization large compared to $1.5B, or they are betting the
company on the Shuttle remaining safe, which Lloyds has no intention
of doing.
	Lloyds (and other companies, on large exposures) will reinsure
(i. e. they will pay parts of their premiums to other companies in
return for accepting parts of the risk) but the total size of that
part of the insurance industry that would consider accepting a part of
the risk would have to exceed $1.5B by a factor of about a hundred.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #157    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 157

Today's Topics:
				Insurance 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 1982 1023-PST
From: JPM at SU-AI
Subject: Insurance 
To:   space at MIT-MC  


On King's comment:  that is silly.  It is routine to insure for 100 million
nowadays.  THe pipeline project cost on the order of $10 billion.  Insurance
companies EACH have capital on the order of $10 billion for the giants, so
there would be no difficulty insuring something for $1.5 billion (at a price
of course).  Indeed, insurance companies could handle up to two orders of
magnitude MORE, not less (although that would of course be really pushing the
limit - one order of magnitude is more reasonable for now).

Jim

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #158    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 158

Today's Topics:
			  external tanks, cont.
			 Indian Satellite Launch
			     Indian satellite
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun Apr 11 04:08:16 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!cca!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: external tanks, cont.
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Actually, neither I nor A.exp@Berkeley was entirely right about whether
it's easier to use solids or the shuttle main engines to get the tank
into a suitably-high orbit.  It depends on how high the orbit needs to
be, something I'm not sure of.  The tradeoffs are like this:

1. Using the SSMEs to carry the tank higher requires carrying the orbiter
	higher too, which wastes fuel *unless* the orbiter is going that
	high anyway (say, to orbit a long-lived satellite).  Remember,
	though, that the ET is *heavy* -- I seem to recall it weighs as
	much as the whole orbiter -- and thus it's not as much of a
	waste as it sounds at first.

2. If you cannot get enough fuel for the operation simply by filling the
	ET full and cutting down shuttle payload, then using the SSMEs
	requires more tankage somewhere.  This is a pain because the
	cargo bay does not have plumbing for LOX/LH2, last I heard.
	Moreover, LOX/LH2 is much bulkier than solid rockets.

3. The SSMEs are not restartable, last I heard, so if you need more than
	one burn you cannot rely entirely on them.

4. The SSMEs, being very-high-pressure oxyhydrogen engines, have a much
	higher exhaust velocity than any solid.  So it is decidedly to
	your advantage to use them if you can.

I suspect the optimum approach, actually, is to use the SSMEs as far
as possible, getting the fuel for this by reducing shuttle payload and
draining the ET as dry as possible, and then use solids for the rest.
The solids preferably should be attached to the ET at launch, to avoid
in-orbit moving and arming and to keep the cargo bay clear.

Alternatively, if the Air Force's project to put Titan engines plus
tankage on the bottom of the ET to get very heavy loads into polar
orbit goes well, this might be a very handy propulsion system for
moving the tank to higher orbits.

It is reasonable that fitting the ET out as a station would be no harder
than building an apartment.  But I'm not sure this is encouraging;  ever
seen how long it takes to accomplish the latter?  It's a lot of work even
in a nice helpful one-gee field.  I am not quarrelling about the project
being worthwhile, but NASA will have to get used to extensive in-orbit
work projects before it is willing to seriously consider this.  When it 
comes to funding such projects (as opposed to funding studies of them),
NASA is very timid and conservative.  Part of this, of course, is because
with turkeys like Proxmire around, NASA daren't goof badly.  But NASA
has always been obsessed with safety and never doing anything untried
when it can be avoided;  arguably the space program would have gone
further and faster if a bolder approach had been adopted.  (It has even
been suggested that the lack of long-term emotional commitment to the
space program by the public was partly a result of lack of boldness:
it never really looked *hard*.)

------------------------------

Date: Sun Apr 11 07:26:44 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!cca!decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Indian Satellite Launch
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


INSTAT 1A, India's fourth satellite, was launched yesterday from
Cape Canaveral aboard a Delta rocket.  It will provide 8000 telephone
channel and also some TV channels.  India's first two satellites
were launched by the USSR and its third was aboard a test firing
of the ESA Ariane booster.  A fifth planned satellite, a second
INSTAT, is planned for a July, 1983, space shuttle launch.

------------------------------

Date:  11 April 1982 15:28 est
From:  Walters.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Indian satellite
Sender:  COMSAT.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
*from:  Tim Walters <Walters.Softarts at MIT-MULTICS>
Local:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, cc:WALTERS:sent.po
Original-date:  11 APR 1982 14:10:08

From UPI wire service:

        CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (UPI) _ The twice-delayed launch of India's
     first operational satellite, which officials say is important to the
     social and economic development of the world's second most populous
     nation, finally was carried out Saturday without a flaw.
        The INSAT-I satellite soared into space on schedule at 1:47 a.m.
     EST atop a U.S. Delta rocket.
        K.R. Narayanan, India's ambassador to the United States who
     witnessed the launch, said the satellite is necessary to  "India's
     social and economic development."
         "I feel terribly excited. It was a glorious and magnificent sight
     to see. This is a splendid example of U.S.-India cooperation of
     far-reaching significance,"  he said.
        The satellite is an unusual design to provide both
     telecommunications and weather information to India, a nation with a
     population of more than 613 million, second only to China.
        It is the first of two INSATs that India is paying $120 million to
     put in orbit. INSAT-II is scheduled to be carried aloft in 1983 by the
     space shuttle.
        Professor S. Dhawan, chairman of India's Space Commission, said
     direct broadcasting to rural areas will begin Aug. 15, India's
     independence day.
         "The satellite will help us step-by-step in the country's
     development,"  Dhawan said.
        Saturday was the third attempt to launch INSAT-I with a Delta
     rocket, the U.S. Space Agency's most reliable launch vehicle. Small, but
     nagging problems twice delayed the scheduled launch _ first on Thursday
     and again on Friday. They were corrected quickly, but caused 24-hour
     delays each time.
        INSAT-I was programmed to go first into a highly eliptical orbit
     ranging from 115 miles to more than 22,000 miles above Earth.
        About three days after launch, remote firing of a motor aboard the
     satellite will position it in a stationary orbit 22,300 miles above the
     Equator, west of Delhi.
        Aboard the INSAT-I are 12 of the transponders that can handle
     simultaneously 8,000 telephone calls or other data transmission. Two
     channels will be  devoted to direct television broadcasting.
        India wants to eventually have 100,000 television terminals in
     rural areas across the country.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #159    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 159

Today's Topics:
	   (LA people) OASIS 24 April: "Mapping Far-Off Moons"
			      shuttle aborts
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 1982 1208-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I understand that NASA is planning to put the External Tank into orbit
on STS-8.  This will be purely experimental, and I don't know how long
the ET is expected to survive.

With regard to fitting the ET out as an orbital station, I have a copy
of a report on how to do that (Space Systems Development Group, #136
136 South Virgil Ave.  Los Angeles, CA  90004 $10).  They describe two
ways that you can get things started:

	1) Build a habitability module on Earth that fits over the bottom
of the ET (in the gap between the SRBs).  This module contains a living
module that can be used as a construction shack until the rest of the
ET can be outfitted.  This may be trickier than was originally planned
as the bottom of the ET gets a little hot during liftoff.

	2) Bring along a set of inflatable walls.  You would essentially
blow up a big shaped balloon (manufactured on Earth, of course) and then
spray quick hardening foam over them to get, in very short order, a lot
of defined living space.  This method should be fairly quick, and not
require a construction shack.
	
	An interesting point is made in the report about the ET.  The
ET is actually composed of two tanks, separated by a collar (the knurled
ring about 2/3 of the way up the tank).  This intertank is mostly empty,
and could be used as cargo space to carry supplies for outfitting the
tank.  This does not increase the cargo weight capacity of the Shuttle,
but it does increase the cargo volume.  --Tom

------------------------------

Date: 12-Apr-82 14:27:05 PST (Monday)
From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: (LA people) OASIS 24 April: "Mapping Far-Off Moons"
To: Space @ MC
cc: Hamilton

Time: Saturday 24 April 7 pm

Place: The Aerospace Corporation, Bldg A-1
	El Segundo Blvd just west of Aviation

Speaker: Merton Davies, Rand Corp.

Topic:  "Mapping Far-Off Moons":  A presentation of some
of the techniques used to transform the Voyager 1 and 2
images into the detailed satellite maps issued by the U.S.
Geological survey.

Admission free.  (213)374-1381 for more info.

--Bruce

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 1982 at 1700-CST
From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 
Subject: shuttle aborts
To: space at mit-mc

Does anyone know what the specific procedure is during a return-to-
launch site abort? I am told that the shuttle turns around under
thrust-vector control and then goes to an attitude that the RCS and
control surfaces can handle, but I don't understand how the tank can
be safely separated in the atmosphere.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Apr-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #160    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 160

Today's Topics:
			       ET in orbit
		   Re: future status of {net,fa}.space
		     future status of {net,fa}.space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 1982 1035-MST
From: Pendleton at UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: ET in orbit
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

It has been proposed that the shuttles payload can be increased by
 30 to 50% by replacing the steel solid rocket casings with carbon composite
casings.  This could solve the problem of placing the ET in a high orbit,
not to mention other desirable results.

      Bob P.
-------

------------------------------

Date: Tue Apr 13 15:15:58 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!cca!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!cbosg!nscs!jpj at Berkeley
Subject: Re: future status of {net,fa}.space
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I vote for net.space - for reasons in conjunction w/djb's.
Cheers...
Jim Jenal
BTL/CB

------------------------------

Date: Tue Apr 13 10:21:39 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!cca!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!cbosg!cbosgd!mark at Berkeley
Subject: future status of {net,fa}.space
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


OK, guys, we've had enough time to try out both forms of this.
Now it's time to make a decision.  Do you like the digested (fa)
form, or the direct (net) form better?  One of them is going to
go away.  Which do you want to keep?  Please reply on newsgroup
net.news.group only, to save the people on the arpanet from
being bored by all this.
	Mark

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Apr-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #161    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 161

Today's Topics:
			    Space in the news
		 External tank and solids in payload bay
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 1982 0653-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Space in the news
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: Space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]14-Apr-82 06:53:24.WMARTIN>

Electronic Engineering Times, 12 April 82, page 28:

This entire page has five items relating to space which may be of
interest to people on the list; there's too much to type in -- I
will mention the topics and recommend that you locate the
publication (it's a newspaper) at your local library.

THE SECRECY OF THE FOURTH SHUTTLE FLIGHT

The columnist predicts problems for NASA resulting from the
secrecy of the payload on the fourth flight, and speculates that
video transmissions showing the payload bay will be prohibited.
He guesses the payload will be a cryogenic infrared sensor to
demonstrate technology for future surveillance spacecraft.

SPACE-BASED DOLLARS

Defense spending for space-based systems is likely to double in
the next seven years, according to Frost & Sullivan.  Much of the
money will go into particle-beam and high-energy laser hardware.
In constant 1980 dollars, will go from $477 million in fiscal
1981 to $959 million in fiscal 1987.  They also predict a shift
from defensive or retaliatory capability to offensive roles.

...AND WHERE THEY'LL BE SPENT

A plan for an integrated high-energy laser weapons development
effort will involve DARPA, the USAF, and the Army.  DARPA will
manage it initially and it may then move to a new USAF Space
Command, built from the current USAF Space Division.  An RFP is
expected soon for studies, with $9 million in initial funding to
each participating company.  Expected entrants include Martin
Marietta, Eastman Kodak, Lockheed, Rockwell Int'l, and TRW.
These companies have repeatedly stated that laser battle stations
could be demonstrated in five years, given adequate funding.

MARTIN MARIETTA SPACE EFFORTS

This company seems to be pushing the development of a
technological base to put it at the forefront of directed-energy
space weaponry development.  Areas emphasized are:

Acquisition tracking and pointing -- though it lost the full
Talon Gold project to Lockheed, Martin has been working on a
DARPA contract for this critical area.

Survivability -- continued operation of spacecraft in a hostile
environment.  Uses Stealth technology plus thermal signature
reduction to prevent infrared sensing.

Contaminants -- Effects of radiation and weapon operation on
spacecraft components, under contract to NASA and the USAF
Materials Lab.

Robotics -- Trying to get a DARPA contract to work in this area
to eliminate the need for "full-time human control".

Advanced Automation -- an example is the feature identification
and location experiment, flown on the second shuttle mission (to
be re-flown due to the shortened flight).  Automatic recognition
of desired features and keeping satellite observation time from
being wasted on clouds.

NASA:SPACE SHUTTLE ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENTS

The third payload operated "extremely well"; all but one were a
success.  The eight experiments involved were meant to monitor
the shuttle's effect on its immediate environment and vice versa.

Regards, Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 1982 21:02:00-PST
From: A.exp at Berkeley
Subject:  External tank and solids in payload bay

It is better to haul up solid boosters for the external tank inside
the cargo bay than haul them up on the place on the tank to which
they would be attached.  The latter requires an reconfiguration for 
aerodynamics and balance because nothing is designed to be outside
the present Shuttle body while it goes through the atmosphere into orbit.

The former requires only some bolts on the solid boosters and on the
positions they would be attached to on the external tank, and a control
mechanism to keep the external tank going in the right direction, such
as a gimbal on the mounts.  The Shuttle arm can mount the solid
boosters on the external tank after it is released from the Shuttle.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #162    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 162

Today's Topics:
		  Christopher Kraft announces retirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed Apr 14 19:39:12 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!cca!decvax!harpo!mhtsa!allegra!phr at Berkeley
Subject: Christopher Kraft announces retirement
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


	   SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) _ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft, director
of the Johnson Space Center, announced Wednesday he will leave the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration at the end of the
year.
	   Kraft, 58, said he has no definite plans. He said he would
remain at his post until after the space shuttle Columbia completes
its first operational flight in November.
	   ``This will be a transition period for activity at the Johnson
Space Center and a reasonable time to depart,'' Kraft said.
	   Kraft's career began in 1945 with the National Advisory Council
on Aeronautics in Virginia. In 1958, he was selected as one of the
original members of the Space Task group to oversee the Mercury
project.
	   Afterward, he came to Houston as a flight director for the
Mercury and most of the Gemini projects, and in 1972, was named as
space center director.
	   AP-NR-04-14 1251EST<

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #163    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 163

Today's Topics:
			      discontinuity
			     Shuttle Pictures
			 Shuttle Work on Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 1982 23:40:45-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc
Subject: discontinuity

   In accordance with requests from our system manager to reduce the load on
our link to the arpanet, please discontinue my direct subscriptions to your
digests

------------------------------

Date: Sat Apr 17 22:47:15 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!ucbvax!npois!alice!research!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Pictures
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


On page 105 of the May, 1982, issue of SCIENCE DIGEST, there is
an ad for four 16x20 pictures of the Columbia's recent flight
(one of it on the pad at night, two of the launch (one with
a reflection of it on the nearby river), and one of the landing)
They are LASER Graphic (r) print ``from official NASA photographs''
Framed or unframed (*BIG* price difference)

------------------------------

Date: Sat Apr 17 17:41:29 1982
To: Space at MIT-MC
From: decvax!ucbvax!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Work on Schedule
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


(Back after a week's vacation...)

Preparations for STS-4 are going along on schedule as of this weekend.
While technicians are inspecting the shuttle in the OPF and draining
its OMS and reaction control system of fuels, the external tank and
two SRB's to be used in STS-4 are being mated over the weekend.  It
will be a 7 day flight and the last flight to land at Edwards.  Future
flights will land at KSC.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #164    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 164

Today's Topics:
			      Reusable SRBs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  19 April 1982 08:51 est
From:  CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Reusable SRBs
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

Does anyone know if any of the solid rocket boosters have been reused yet?  I
gather they've recovered all of them, but I don't believe they reuse them
right away.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #165    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 165

Today's Topics:
			  External Tank again...
			  Shuttle return of MX's
			    Re: Reusable SRBs
			       Eta Carinae
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun Apr 18 19:32:53 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: External Tank again...
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

Suppose we are using solid strapons to boost the ET higher, and are
attaching them in orbit.  How much extra delta-V are we getting out of
the SSMEs in getting the tank up there?  If the answer is "little or
none", it goes like this.  Main engine cutoff.  Shuttle separates
from tank, maneuvers to the right position.  Cargo bay opened, arm
picks up first solid booster, begins to attach it.  ...and at about
this moment, orbiter and tank both hit atmosphere, and wind up in
little pieces on the bottom of the Indian Ocean.  There is very
little time available between ET separation and ET reentry;  if the
SSMEs are used more extensively, this will lengthen, but I suspect
it would still be a severe constraint.

There are other problems of designing the attachment system, and the
general hairiness of handling big chunks of explosive (that's what
solid-fuel rocket motors are, and they are handled with elaborate care).
It does look like it's better to have the solids in place at launch.
Any reconfiguration for aerodynamics and balance would probably be
a minor variation of what is going to have to be done anyway for the
USAF's extra-boost addition (Titan engines and tanks on bottom of ET).

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 1982 10:46:33-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: arms-d at mit-mc, space-enthusiasts at mit-mc
Subject: Shuttle return of MX's
Cc: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX

   Here's a question that could be good for several weeks of wrangling before
someone actually comes up with the beginnings of a factual answer. There has
been a proposal that MX's could be parked in orbit in the course of an alert,
then brought down on the USSR if there really was an attack, or brought back
by Shuttle if it was a false alarm. The question is, is this really
practicable?
  Breaking this down into more manageable questions:
 1. How much of the MX would have to be left in orbit to assure precise
aiming if it is to be used? (need both mass and dimensions)
 2. How many of these [upper stages] could be fitted into a Shuttle cargo
bay (need both packing and the safe landing weight of the Shuttle)
 3. If we throw away the guidance section and just bring back the warheads,
what does this do to (2)? Would this be reasonable in terms of the work that
would be necessary on the ground to return the warheads to ready status?
 4. How difficult would (3) be in zero-gee? (Figure that working with nuclear
warheads requires much greater precautions than the sample construction work
that has been done in earthbound tanks of water.)
   Have fun!

------------------------------

Date: 20-Apr-82  9:03:37 PST (Tuesday)
From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Reusable SRBs
To: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
cc: Space@MC, Hamilton.ES

See (as usual) last week's AW&ST [Aviation Week] for the
proposed schedule of reuse.  None have been reused yet.
The intent seems to be to phase in the reuse of various
components (e.g. SSME's [main engines]).

--Bruce

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 82 2:22-PST
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
To: space at mc
Subject: Eta Carinae

!a034  0159  21 Apr 82
PM-Super Star,550
Star Explosion May Be Visible During Daytimer new grafs and SUBS 
By WARREN E. LEARY
AP Science Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - A stellar event of the highest magnitude is
imminent, say astronomers, who are predicting that the largest star in
the Milky Way could at any moment become the next supernova
observable from Earth.
    The rare phenomenon, signalling a massive explosion of the giant,
swollen star, could be sighted at any time - today or 10,000 years
from now - but astronomers say it will be ''soon'' in the cosmic scale
of time.
    When it does, the star will suddenly appear to be up to 100 million
times brighter than before it exploded and could be seen even in
broad daylight for a time.
    Dr. Kris Davidson of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis said
Tuesday that the star Eta Carinae appears to be the most likely
candidate in our part of the Milky Way galaxy to become a supernova.
    ''It may not be the next, but we can't identify another one that
will go off in the next 100,000 years,'' Davidson said in a telephone
interview.
    Scientists estimate that a supernova occurs every 50 years among the
billions of stars in our galaxy. But because only about a tenth of
the galaxy is visible from the Earth, one can be observed only every
couple of hundred years.
    The last supernova recorded occurred in 1604, however, so another is
long overdue.
    Eta Carinae, visible only from the Southern Hemisphere, appears to
be the only star of its kind discovered in the Milky Way. It is 100
times more massive than the sun and has a diameter of about 60 million
miles, compared with less than a million miles for the sun.
    ''We call it a blue super giant and it really is unique,'' Davidson
said. ''There are some stars in other galaxies that look similar, and
these are among the most luminous stars there are.''
    Such a star has a typical lifetime of only 2 or 3 million years,
compared with several billion years for a slower-burning body such as
the sun. The giant stars are so bright because they burn up their
hydrogen fuel at a tremendously accelerated rate, astronomers say.
    Stars become supernovas when they burn up most of their fuel, swell
and then explode in a burst of light and energy.
    The explosion of Eta Carinae would cause it to give off more light
than the combined brilliance of all the other stars for a period of
weeks, Davidson said. It would be visible from Earth as a bright point
of light even in the daytime.
    Eta Carinae is about 9,000 light years from Earth. A light year is
the distance light travels in space in a year at 186,000 miles per
second, about six trillion miles. That means its explosion into a
supernova actually may have occurred thousands of years ago but hasn't
yet become visible here.
    The star has been known to astronomers for hundreds of years. But
because a thick mass of dust and gas it previously ejected obscures
direct observation, no one knew whether it was a new star forming or
an old star dying.
    Davidson and Drs . Nolan R. Walborn and Theodore R. Gull of the
Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland made new observations using
the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile and the
International Ultraviolet Explorer Satellite orbiting the Earth.
    Their work, financed by the National Science Foundation and
published in the current Astrophysical Journal, determined that the
star is nearing the end of its life.
    
ap-ny-04-21 0459EST
**********

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #166    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 166

Today's Topics:
			   MX missles in space
	     Re: SPACE Digest V2 #165, Shuttle return of MX's
			     Black Astronaut
		       Turnaround Work on Schedule
		     Soviets launch new Space Station
			    LASER Graphics Ad
			  Nuclear Power in Space
			     Saturn V engines
			    Weapons in Space??
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 1982 at 0731-CST
From: David M. Phillips <david at utexas-11>
Subject: MX missles in space
To: space at mit-mc

MX missles in space?  Good god!  How far is Reagan inspired war
fever going to carry us?  Not over the brink I hope.  What ever
happened to the premise of using space for peaceful purposes.
And even assuming some maniac puts an MX or similar in space,
how are they going to guarantee it won't happen to fall down on
us instead of them.

------------------------------

Date: 21-Apr-82 11:29:49 PST (Wednesday)
From: Trigoboff at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #165, Shuttle return of MX's
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 21 Apr 1982 0302-PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

I think they weren't planning to use the shuttle to bring them back, but
just command them to re-enter in a non-detonating mode.  They mentioned
Kwajelein as a possible recovery point.

------------------------------

Date: Tue Apr 20 17:45:07 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Black Astronaut
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

After Sally Ride becomes the first American woman in space aboard
STS-7, Air Force Lt. Guion S. Bluford will become the first Black
astronaut in STS-8.  He will also serve as a mission specialist.

------------------------------

Date: Tue Apr 20 21:51:39 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Turnaround Work on Schedule
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

NASA today announced that the turnaround for STS-4 is proceeding
on schedule, and they still are aiming for a late June launch.
Officials today said that they expect to roll the shuttle to the
VAB in the middle of May.  There it will be mated with the external
tank and two SRB's, already mated.  Some 800 tiles have already been
removed for improvement, and a turbo fuel pump in one of the main
engines has been removed for replacement.

In other announcements, NASA said that Richard Truly (STS-2) would
command STS-8 and that John Young (STS-1) would command STS-9.  STS-9
will be the first flight that will take the European Space Lab up
into orbit.  Both are Challenger flights.

------------------------------

Date: Tue Apr 20 13:36:25 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!mhtsa!allegra!phr at Berkeley
Subject: Soviets launch new Space Station
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

Salyut 7 has just been launched, and its systems "are functioning
normally."  It joins Salyut 6, which has been in orbit for 4 1/2
years.  The station is apperently unmanned.

French cosmonaut Patrick Baudry is expected to fly to the station in
late June.  France will be the tenth country to take part in a joint
space mission with the Soviet Union and the first non-communist
country.

Tass said that the station is in an 89.2 minute, 136 by 173 mile
orbit.

------------------------------

Date: Tue Apr 20 23:03:57 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!research!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: LASER Graphics Ad
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

For those of you who asked for the address of the company, unfortunately,
I tore out the entire ad when ordering.  The only thing I remember is
the name of the company:  LASER Graphics, Ltd.  Perhaps a local library
would carry the issue (May, 1982)?  BTW, the pictures are of STS-1, not
STS-3, as I said earlier.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 1982 (Wednesday) 1641-EDT
From: HAGAN at Wharton-10 (John Hagan)
Subject: Nuclear Power in Space
To:   space at MIT-MC

As I understood it, the U.S. had signed an international agreement that
forbids nulear energy power plants and weapons in space.  Due to this
contract, NASA had to scrap a plan to use small atomic bombs to propel
a craft to speeds like .1C, and perhaps visit planets and STARS...

Any truth in this?

------------------------------

Date: Wed Apr 21 15:00:05 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Berkeley
Subject: Saturn V engines
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


I recently bought one of those "laser prints" of NASA photographs, and I
must say that they are very well done.  One of them is a picture of the
Apollo 15 launch, and I noticed something that I'd seen before on shots
of Saturn V launches.

If you look carefully at the end of the first stage engine nozzles, you will
note that there is a region below the nozzles where the exhaust is a dark
reddish color, instead of the brilliant yellow-white of the exhaust
farther down.  Does anyone know what causes this?  I would think that
the propellants would have thoroughly mixed and burned before leaving the
engine nozzle.

Phil Karn
Bell Labs Murray Hill

------------------------------

Date: Tue Apr 20 21:09:12 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley
Subject: Weapons in Space??
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the world agree (some UN protocol) to
keep the arms race out of space altogether?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #167    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 167

Today's Topics:
			    Outer Space Treaty
			Penny Wise, Pound Foolish
			  Another Saturn V query
			Columbia's radio problems
			Re: Nuclear Power in Space
	17:50 PST (Thursday) From: Trigoboff at PARC-MAXC Subject:
			      Upper Booster
			  Laser Graphics Prints
			  Re: LASER Graphics Ad
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 1982 0712-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Outer Space Treaty
To: space at MIT-MC

Indeed, The US and Russia have signed the outer space treaty, which prohibits
weapons of mass destruction in space or on planets.  It does not prohibit
nuclear power plants (remember that russian reactor that hit Canada?),
but does prohibit even 'peaceful' nuclear explosives so project Orion type
rockets are forbidden.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 1982 0714-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Penny Wise, Pound Foolish
To: space at MIT-MC

I hear that NASA will be shutting down Pioneers 10 and 11 and Pioneer Venus
in January because of budget cuts.  Once this happens the spacecraft cannot
be restarted.  Saving will be around $7 million.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 22 April 1982 1153-EST (Thursday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  Another Saturn V query
Message-Id: <22Apr82 115348 DS30@CMU-10A>

If you look at a photograph of a Saturn V high in the atmosphere, but
with the first stage still burning, it looks like the exhaust plume
blossoms from quite a ways up the rocket, about from the top of the
first stage.  Can anyone explain this?

------------------------------

Date: 22 April 1982 1156-EST (Thursday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  Columbia's radio problems
Message-Id: <22Apr82 115657 DS30@CMU-10A>

From Flight International, issue of 10 April 82:

Shortly after landing it was discovered that there was nothing wrong
with Columbia's radios, which had caused communications difficulties
during the mission.  The problem was traced to an open circuit breaker
and out-of-position switch, which could easily have been put right by
the crew.  Nasa apparently failed to sort the problem out because of
flight controller conservatism -- it was decided to leave things as
they were rather than risk a complete loss of communication.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 1982 09:12 PST
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power in Space
In-reply-to: HAGAN's message of 21 Apr 1982 (Wednesday) 1641-EDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

I don't know about any plans NASA had for nuclear propulsion, but all missions
past Mars (2 Pioneers and 2 Voyagers) have had nuclear electric power.  This is
the only way we know to generate continuous power for periods of years that far
from the sun.  There is some treaty restriction on nuclear stuff in space,
however, since an LA Times article about the MX in space said that it appeared
that it would violate the treaty.
/Don Lynn

------------------------------

22-Apr-82 11:17:50 PST (Thursday) From: Trigoboff at PARC-MAXC Subject:
Re: SPACE Digest V2 #166 In-reply-to: OTA's message of 22 Apr 1982
0302-PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

There was a news item yesterday which said that the people who proposed
the "orbital basing" scheme for the MX were considering "what to do about"
the no nuclear weapons in space treaties.

------------------------------

Date: Thu Apr 22 20:19:32 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!mhtsa!ihnss!houxi!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Upper Booster
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


A prototype of an upper stage rocket to be launched from the cargo bay
of the space shuttle was unveiled today.  It will boost satellites into
geosynchronous orbit, which the shuttle cannot reach.  It will be tested
from a Titan booster late this year, and will make its debut on STS-6,
now scheduled for January, 1983.

------------------------------

Date: Thu Apr 22 20:51:25 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!pavel at Berkeley
Subject: Laser Graphics Prints
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


There is an ad in OMNI for the prints Adam mentioned of the STS-1 flight.

The text of the ad follows:

        AMERICAN HISTORY CAPTURED...

        Full color Laser Graphic(r) prints from official NASA photo-
        graphs of America's triumphant Space Shuttle maiden flight.
        Reproduced by the most advanced lithographic techniques on high-
        quality Kromekote paper and coated for an attractive glossy
        finish.  Outstanding clarity and fidelity in a large
                        16" BY 20" FORMAT.
        
        $5.95 each (unframed)
        Set of four $18.95 (Save $4.85)

        Available quality framed with color coordinated mat, contempo-
        rary chrome metal frame and non-glare glass.

        $29.95 each ($6.00 Insurance/Postage)

        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        |  LASER GRAPHICS, LTD.   P.O. Box 1316, Simi Valley, CA. 93062  |
        |                                                                |
        |  Yes! Please rush me the items below (Indicate Quantity)       |
        |                                                                |
        |    Framed   Unframed                                           |
        |   ________ __________ LR38 Launch with picturesque reflection  |
        |   ________ __________ LR12 Shuttle on pad, colorfully nightlit |
        |   ________ __________ LR31 Spectacular liftoff, maiden flight  |
        |   ________ __________ LR44 Columbia within feet of touchdown   |
        |                                                                |
        |  SPECIAL OFFER! Set of four prints $18.95 (You save $4.85)____ |
        |            |                                                   |
        |  __ Check  |  Name____________________________________________ |
        |            |                (Please Print)                     |
        |  __ Money  |  Address_________________________________________ |
        |     Order  |                                                   |
        |            |  City_________________State________Zip___________ |
        ------------------------------------------------------------------

        California Residents add sales tax
        Foreign orders add $1.50 per item

------------------------------

Date: Thu Apr 22 13:32:44 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!hplabs!faunt at Berkeley
Subject: Re: LASER Graphics Ad
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


They also advertise in Aviation Leak.
Laser Graphics, Inc.
PO Box 1316
Simi Valley CA 93062

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #168    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 168

Today's Topics:
		   Electromagnetic Accelerator Article
		       Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule
		    Some definitions of abbreviations 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 1982 1514-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Electromagnetic Accelerator Article
To: space at MIT-MC

The April 82 IEEE Spectrum has an interesting article on electromagnetic
accelerators.  Of interest is a proposed hybrid mass driver/chemical
rocket system for launching payloads into low earth orbit.

Launched Vehicle:
	Two-stage solid-fuel rocket
	Mass: 15000 Kg
	Length: 10 m
	Diameter: 1 m
	Payload to LEO: 1000 Kg

Launcher:
	Velocity:	2 Km/sec
	Acceleration:	20 g
	Length:		10 Km
	Launch time:	10 sec
	Launch Energy:	30 Gigajoules
	Force:		3.0E6 Newtons
	Average Power:  6 Gigawatts
	Peak power:	6 GW

Thge system stores 50 Gj of energy for 200 seconds in a massive aluminum
coil 40 meters in diameter weighing over 8000 tons.  Energy input to the
coil would be from the Pacific Intertie, an existing dc power line running
down through California.  Total cost would be $200 M to $400 M.  Under
reasonable assumptions about usage the cost to LEO is $3000 per kg of
payload.  After amortization of the launcher the cost drops to $1400 per kg.

Also of interest is a single coil accelerator.  Placed next to the coil
is a conducting ring.  When a high current pulse is sent through the coil
the induction ring is accelerated to 1 km/sec in just 1 cm, an acceleration
of 20 million g's.  A russian has proposed accelerators capable of 
100 million g accelerations.  These acclerators would be as reaction
engines, the induction rings being made from asteroidal material.
-------

------------------------------

Date: Tue Apr 20 07:03:07 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!ihnss!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!davidson at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

I would appreciate it if authors of articles would avoid undefined
abbreviations.  In the eight line article I just read, there were
four such terms I've never seen before: OPF, OMS, SRB and KSC (sounds
like assember mnemonics).  Use of such abbreviationsrenders an
interest group opaque to new readers like me.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 1982 2300-PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Some definitions of abbreviations 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I was going to produce a glossary to help solve this and similar problems
but somehow the project got delayed as might have been expected.  In this
case let me fill in the definitions for this case.

OPF - Orbiter Processing Facility - This is the building at Kennedy where
the orbiter goes after it returns from its landing and before it is
remated to a new external tank (often refered to as an ET) and solid fuel
rocket pair.

OMS - Orbital Manuvering System - These are the small engines (using
hydrazine as fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as oxidizer (this propellant
combination is called hypergolic, this means that they ignite upon
contact, no ignition system is needed (The ignition system is one of the
hard parts about a liquid fuel rocket engine.  It caused the failure of
many early US rockets and probably Hudson's recent failure in Texas.  The
problem is that if you don't ignite the fuel immediately after it starts
entering the combustion chamber it globs up in a kind of jelly (at least
kerosene and LOX (Liquid Oxygen) do) which literally explodes when it does
ignite.).) that the Space Shuttle uses for moving around in orbit.  It
also uses them to do the tail end of getting into orbit and for getting
out of obrit before landing.

SSME - Space Shuttle Main Engines - While I'm at it let me mention that
this is the acronym that is commonly used for the big engines in the back
of the orbiter that burn Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen thats stored in the
external tank.

SRB - Solid Rocket Boosters - These are the solid fuel rocket engines that
are straped onto the sides of the external tank for the first 2 minutes
and 6 seconds of the flight.  These burn a mixture of powdered aluminum
and what amounts to "rubber".

KSC - Kennedy Space Center - This of course is where the Shuttle is
launched from.

I hope these help, I may get around to the glossary project enentually.
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #169    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 169

Today's Topics:
		      Americans can Travel in Space
		       Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat Apr 24 09:48:55 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Americans can Travel in Space
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

A NASA doctor, who himself will fly on the shuttle as a mission specialist,
said today that he thought any American adult in good enough physical
condition to ``pass a life insurance exam'' can stand the strain of
flying the space shuttle, if NASA opens them up to the public.  He
said that the person would have to exercise like the astronauts, to get
their legs ready for weightlessness; in space, leg muscles undergo atrophy,
which hampers them when the person returns to Earth.

------------------------------

Date: Sat Apr 24 09:51:14 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

I apologize for using abbreviations a lot.  I assume that if I
post the real meaning once, then it's OK to use the abbreviations.
In each of the cases mentioned, I did that.  However, here are the
meaning of those four abbreviations:

OPF - Orbital Processing Facility
OMS - Orbital Maneuvering System
SRB - Solid (Fuel) Rocket Booster
KSC - Kennedy Space Center

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Apr-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #170    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 170

Today's Topics:
			       ET IN ORBIT
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 1982 1453-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS at USC-ECL>
Subject: ET IN ORBIT
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: tcs at USC-ECL, KATZ at USC-ISIF, PAINE at USC-ECL, RIEDEL at USC-ECL

I would like to try to determine the cost of owning an ET in a fairly
stable orbit (at least 10 years before decay). If anyone can provide
answers to any of the following, it would be helpful:

     1) How high an orbit is required to be confident of a minimum 10 year life?
     2) What is the payload penalty to carry the ET to an orbit stable enough
	to last at least a week or so?
     3) How much energy is required to boost the ET to the 10 year orbit. How
	much is this in equivalent upper stages (ie how many ius's would be
	required, for example).
     4) What is the cost per ius (or other upper stage) to be used?
     5) How much would it cost to insure the operation, in terms of both
	liability and success of the mission?
     6) What other costs should be considered?

I would be surprised if the cost exceeded the $35M currently charged for a
full shuttle bay, and it should be a good deal less. The next question of
course is what to do with it once you have it, assuming it could be
obtained in a few years.

T. C. Savage

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Apr-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #171    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 171

Today's Topics:
	     re: electromagnetic accelerator proposal in IEEE
	   Another Saturn V query - why the plume is up so high
	    Re: Another Saturn V query; Nuclear Power in Space
			    orbital mechanics
			     Solar Max Repair
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Monday, 26 April 1982  08:56-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: re: electromagnetic accelerator proposal in IEEE
To: dietz at usc-ecl, space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	Isn't the Shuttle cheaper then $1400/KG?

------------------------------

Date: 26 April 1982 14:02-EST
From: Oded Anoaf Feingold <OAF at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Another Saturn V query - why the plume is up so high
To: David.Smith at CMU-10A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The plume blossoms that high up because the fluid (exhaust gas)
comes out at much higher pressure than the surrounding atmosphere,
and expands outward.  The effect is of having a spherically
expanding shell of gas appearing behind the rocket.  The particular
angle through which the gas turns on expansion is in 3/4 powers of
tangents, called the NU function, and is tabulated for various Mach
numbers.  

Effects of the plume going that high up (sometimes past the leading
edge of the rocket) are twofold (at least);
	1)	It changes the visual and radar signatures.  Important
	for you IFF and missile defense people.
	2)	It can deposit exhaust gases (or residues) on equipment
	in the vehicle's nose.  So you have to take account of that
	when designing your payload/instrumentation/whatever.

Sorry for the long answer to the short question.

Oded

------------------------------

Date: 26-Apr-82 12:36:58 PDT (Monday)
From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Another Saturn V query; Nuclear Power in Space
To: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30), Lynn.ES
cc: Space @ MC, Hamilton.ES

(1) The "exhaust plume...about from the top of the
first stage" is a shock wave rather than an exhaust plume.

(2) When we talk about "nuclear electric power" in space, it's
important to distinguish between RTG's and reactors.  As far as
I know, the U.S. has never orbited a reactor such as the Soviet
one that broke up over Canada.  U.S. outer planet probes use Radioisotopic
Thermoelectric Generators, which are completely passive devices
that use the thermoelectric effect to convert heat differences
directly into electricity.  I'm sure they operate at far lower
temperatures than does any reactor core.

--Bruce

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 1982 at 1712-CDT
From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 
Subject: orbital mechanics
To: space at mit-mc

Can anyone recommmend a good text on orbital mechanics for the layman?

------------------------------

Date: Mon Apr 26 17:42:45 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: sjb at OuterSpace
Subject: Solar Max Repair
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

NASA is proposing to use a newly developed jet powered back pack to
aid in the repair of the Solar Max Satellite, damaged 2 years ago
when three fuses blew out.  If Congress does not accept the plan,
the DoD will fund it.  The plan calls for the shuttle to park 500
feet from the satellite.  There, an astronaut would fly up to the
satellite, prepare it from grappling by the remote arm, the arm
would pull it in, the fuses would be replaced, and the satellite
would be put back into space.  This would be the first time a satellite
has ever been recovered from space.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #172    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 172

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Solar Max Repair via Shuttle
			 SPACE Digest V2 #171    
			      SHUTTLE COSTS
		      projectile pollution in space
			      SHUTTLE COSTS
			    orbital mechanics
			     Solar Max Repair
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 1982 09:00 PDT
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Solar Max Repair via Shuttle
In-reply-to: SPACE Digest V2 #171
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

Comment--
"Jet powered" is a confusing term, mainly used for air-breathing vehicles.

Questions--
1) Will the repair be done entirely in space (are the fuses
   "field-replaceable") ?
2) What is involved in "preparing the satellite for grappling"?
3) Is this backpack self-contained (i.e. no umbilical?) [I assume so...]
4) Any idea when (on what mission), or does that hinge on approval by
   Congress?
5) Since the Solar Max satellite is civilian/scientific, what's DoD's
   interest -- is it because the "spacewalk" would serve as training for
   repair of military satellites?

/John

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 27 April 1982  08:59-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC
cc: King at KESTREL
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #171    

	American spacecraft do, indeed,use RTG's.  Our technology is
much better thn the Russian's at using little power.
	However, why are you sure that it runs at a low temperature.
I would guess that it can safely run at a HIGHER temperature than a
fission reacter because there needn't be any moving parts such as
control rods.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 1982 1347-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS at USC-ECL>
Subject: SHUTTLE COSTS
To: KING at KESTREL
cc: tcs at USC-ECL, SPACE at MIT-MC


THE RATES BEING CHARGED FOR A FULL SHUTTLE BAY (65000LBS) ARE $35M UNTIL
1985, AND $50M AFTER THAT. SINCE THE SHUTTLE IS CURRENTLY BOOKED THROUGH
SEPT 87, YOU MAY AS WELL USE $50M, WHICH COMES OUT TO ABOUT $1700/KG.

T.C.SAVAGE

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 27 April 1982  14:27-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: projectile pollution in space
To: space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	From time to time  someone proposes electric reaction  engines
for deep space manouvering, based on the ejection of large numbers  of
small projectiles.  Such a proposal recently appeared in this forum.
	I made  back-of-the-envelope calculations  on the  effects  of
using a billion such projectiles  (100 per second for several  months;
hardly an implausible launch  schedule).  This might  be used, say, to
move 1/e of an e-million-ton asteroid (100 meters diameter) into Earth
orbit (delta-v  of  10  KM/sec) using  a  billion  1-KG.  projectiles.
Making reasonable assumptions about the  volume of space in the  Solar
System that these projectiles will spread out into, we get an exposure
of 1/10e6 KM^2-yr. from this one asteroid movement.
	This seems like a meager increase, but it seems unlikely  that
this system will only be used once, to move a single relatively modest
asteroid.  It  also seems  unlikely that  our space  exposure will  be
forever limited to  1 KM^2.  I  rather assume that  in the future  our
exposure will be "on the order of" thousands of square KM, and that we
will move thousands of asteroids (or bigger ones).
	To make  a  long story  short,  do proposals  for  deep  space
propulsion by reaction motors  ejecting projectiles properly  consider
the  pollution   problem?    How   does   the   artificial   meteoroid
concentration compare with that of the natural population?  With  that
of the natural  population in  meteor showers?   How nonuniform  would
these non-uniform meteoroid swarms be after (say) a year?
	I'll do more  calculations unless  someone can point  me to  a
reference in which this point has already been considered.

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 27 April 1982  14:30-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
To: Terry C. Savage <TCS at USC-ECL>
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL
Subject: SHUTTLE COSTS

	1) numerous steps are underway to increase Shuttle payload.
	2) the shuttle cost is AFTER it has had its cost overruns -
the accelerator cost is before.
	3) you get onsite work with a shuttle launch

	I'll like the accelerator a lot better when it can do the
whole job.

------------------------------

Date: 28 April 1982 04:28-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: orbital mechanics
To: kjm at UTEXAS-11
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The best text on the subject was by Max Hunter, called THRUST IN
TO SPACE, which explained rockets and orbits and like that.

Unfortunatley I believe it is out of print (my copy is a xerox
Max gave me).

The old "PRINCIPLES OF GUIDED MISSILE DESIGN" has a very good
set of equations, principles, etc.  It is in 3 volumnes and
availble in libraries (there was a time when anyone wha was
anyone in the space business had a set of these red books on his
desk; in fact, getting the company to buy you those was a way to
announce to your colleagues that you were "doing space" although
you were of course being paid on an aircraft budget...

------------------------------

Date: 28 April 1982 04:31-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Solar Max Repair
To: SJB@OUTERSPACE at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Bill Haynes of aerospace corp proposes that Congress ought to
put up a PRIZE of $200 million for the first commercial company
to repair a satellite in orbit and restore it to operation; and
something like $2 billion  to the first company to use some
reasdonable quantity, say a ton, of lunar (or any
extraterrestrial material) (in situ) (ie not a fallen asteroid)
in a commercially successulf product.
	The idea is that these capabilities are badly needed,
and it costs nothing to offer the prizes--while if they are
claimed we would CHEERFULLY pay over the money tax free...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #173    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 173

Today's Topics:
			  shuttle engine blowup?
			Re: Projectile propulsion
			      Shuttle costs
			Re: shuttle engine blowup?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 April 1982 0352-PDT (Wednesday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: shuttle engine blowup?
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MC

A few days ago, I heard (from a usually reliable source) that a 
"$30 million space shuttle engine exploded during testing and was
totally destroyed."

This event was supposedly within the last two or three weeks, but was
kept relatively "quiet" until recently.  There also apparently was
difficulty in determining what caused the explosion.

Does anyone have more details about this?  The mass media has been
silent it seems, but I have alot of faith in my source. 
Thanks much.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 1982 0804-EDT
From: Ron Fischer <FISCHER at RUTGERS>
Subject: Re: Projectile propulsion
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: FISCHER at RUTGERS
In-Reply-To: Your message of 28-Apr-82 0602-EDT

How much more would it cost (energy-wise) to vaporize the asteriod
material and use the expanding vapor as exhaust?

(ron)
-------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 1982 0933-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Shuttle costs
To: space at MIT-MC, king at KESTREL, tcs at USC-ECL

Those shuttles costs you mentioned are heavily subsidized.  Actual costs
are going to be quite a bit higher ($100M per launch).

Also, the shuttle is booked through 87, so any launch system available
before then could find users, even if it cost more.

I suspect that costs overruns would be lower on the accelerator because it
would use less daring technology (off-the-shelf booster, no tiles).
-------

------------------------------

Date: Wed Apr 28 13:54:28 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: smb at CCA
Subject: Re: shuttle engine blowup?
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.



I heard about the engine explosion via normal media channels.  I
suspect that it's just been crowded out by the Falklands *and* the
Sinai withdrawal; I suspect that most newspapers can't handle more than
one big story at a time.

Anyway...  It was a test engine that exploded.  They were testing the
engine at 109% of rated capacity, as part of an effort to increase the
payload capacity.  Last I heard, they didn't know why it blew, nor did
they expect any effect on the Columbia.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Apr-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #174    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 174

Today's Topics:
			    Re: engine blowup
			Reaction Engine Pollution
		     Saturn Plumes / Solar Max Repair
		       Ion Engines and the like    
			GPO for space publications
			       LAUNCH COSTS
			      Saturn V Plume
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 1982 10:40:44-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Re: engine blowup
Cc: lauren at ucla-security

   I did see something on this recently---in a mundane paper (as I recall)
rather than something technical. They were deliberately testing it at
something significantly over rated capacity and felt the blowup would not
affect the current program.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 1982 1052-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Reaction Engine Pollution
To: space at MIT-MC

The proposed MIT one coil accelerator induces very high currents in
the accelerated mass; it is melted or vaporized.  If vaporized, no 
pollution problems should occur as the particles that condense out
will be very small.

I wonder if it is possible to develope a kind of cross between these 
reaction engines and ion engines.  I have in mind some kind of
accelerator that induces currents in a dense plasma, accelerating
the particles in the plasma collectively.  This may give much higher 
thrust than ordinary ion engines.

------------------------------

Date:  29 April 1982 20:02 edt
From:  Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Saturn Plumes / Solar Max Repair
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 28 April 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson

Bear with me-- I'm not an astro expert.

1) I thought it was a principle of nozzle design that the expansion area
was made to expand the exhaust gases to atmospheric pressure, and this
was a cardinal optimization.  (Hence the references to "underexpanded"
and "overexpanded nozzles".)  Why is the Saturn V "so underexpanded" that
the gases blow back (forward, actually) so far?

2) Why go through the exercise of dragging the satellite in, docking,
etc.  just to change three fuses?  Couldn't it be done in place?

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 1982 1725-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Ion Engines and the like    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

It should be noted since the subject of particle (large or small)
accelerators as rockets comes up, that there are important energy issues
that need to be considered.

First, the big objection that many people have with "mass drivers as
rockets" is that the specific impulse is way too low.  What this means is
that the propellant (in this case the mass that's driven out the back end)
is not moving very rapidly, at least not very rapidly compared to the
exhaust of a liquid fuel rocket.  This means that the mass efficiency of
the rocket is low.  On the other extreme is the ion engine which has a
very high exhaust velocity (approaching the speed of light in some cases)
and hence a very high specific impulse and very high mass efficiency.

With high mass efficiency, of course, comes low energy efficiency.  Thus
you trade off mass efficiency for energy efficiency.  This is because the
thrust is proportional to the momentum of the exhaust (speed * mass) and
energy is proportional to the kinetic energy of the exhaust (speed^2 *
mass).  Note that this is only a rough approximation to the real state of
affairs.  What this says is that energy spent heating up your exhaust
material (to vaporize or ionize it) is wasted since it does nothing to
increase your thrust.  An ion engine always has to ionize its exhaust,
hence its name.  The reason it can win anyway is that it spends a lot more
energy accelerating the ion than ionizing it.  A mass driver that
vaporizes the mass it's driving must put a lot more energy into
accelerating the mass than vaporizing it or its wasting its energy.

Specific impulse is a good way to compare the efficency of a rocket
engines of similar types.  Ion engines and the various types of mass
drivers are basically similar does anyone have specific impulse figures
for these engines?  Ion engines typically have ISPs (Impulse (SPecific))
of around 10,000 seconds.  How do these various mass drivers compare?
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 1982 2146-EDT
From: JHENDLER at BBNA
Subject: GPO for space publications
To: space at MIT-MC

In the course of tracing down some specifications for some work I was doing,
I found myself in the local office of the government printing office.  For
those of you not familiar with the GPO it covers gov't publications,
usually far cheaper than corresponding literature at book stores.  Included
in the Dallas office were dozens of pamphlets and lithographs of the
space shuttle, and some wonderful literature about the Voyager missions.
Prices were fantastically cheap compared to those that similar books
and posters are being offered at.
  I've been to the GPO stores before, but the new space stuff is better than 
those they used to carry.
  -Jim Hendler
  Ti Dallas
-------

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 1982 2004-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS at USC-ECL>
Subject: LAUNCH COSTS
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: tcs at USC-ECL



I HAVE ALSO HEARD ESTIMATES OF THE UN-SUBSIDIZED SHUTTLE MARGINAL
COSTS BEING ON THE ORDER OF $80-100M, WHICH IMPLIES ABOUT $3000/KG.
DES ANYONE KNOW WHAT ARIANE IS CHARGING IN TERMS OF COST/KG TO LEO?

T.C.SAVAGE

-------

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 1982 2348-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Saturn V Plume
To:   Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS, space at MIT-MC   

As I understand the Saturn V plume problem, the difficulty is that the
engine has to be designed to work at some given external pressure.  Thus
the first stage Saturn V engines were probably designed to work at
standard atmospheric pressure, so at high altitude the plume would
increase.  The upper stage engines, especially the LEM and Command Module
engines were presumably designed to work in a vacuum.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #175    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 175

Today's Topics:
	     left-handed amino acids discovered in meteorite
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 1982 0856-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-KL>
Subject: left-handed amino acids discovered in meteorite
To: space at MIT-MC

!a084  0712  30 Apr 82
AM-Amino Acids,250
Amino Acids Found In Meteorite That Crashed In Australia
    PHOENIX, Ariz. (AP) - Amino acids - a building block of proteins -
have been found in fragments from a meteorite that crashed in
Australia, a team of researchers report.
    Bartholomew Nagy, a geochemist at the University of Arizona in
Tucson, reported in a paper published in the British journal, Nature,
that the fragments contained the kind of amino acids that most
commonly occur in living things.
    The co-author of the paper was Michael Engel of the Carnegie
Institution in Washington.
    Nagy said he and Engel ''are not talking about extraterrestrial
life.'' But a leading astrogeologist, Dr. Eugene Shoemaker, said the
research ''certainly supports the idea that the starting material''
was brought to Earth by meteorites.
    Nagy said the specimens from the fragments contained mostly
''left-handed'' amino acids.
    Amino acids have turned up previously in meteorites, but Nagy said
most of them contained mostly ''right-handed'' amino acids.
    Nagy said ''almost all'' amino acids in living organisms are
left-handed.
    Left-handed structures turn polarized light to the left, and
right-handed structures turn it to the right.
    Nagy said he and Engel found the amino acids in the Murchison
meteorite, which crashed onto Victoria in eastern Austrailia on Sept.
20, 1969.
    Other researchers had looked for left-handed amino acids in the
Murchison fragments, but Nagy said he and Engel were able to find them
by examining a larger specimen with geochemical techniques only
recently perfected.
    Nagy said the researchers took special steps to ensure that the
specimen was not affected by earthly contaminants.
    
ap-ny-04-30 1012EST
**********
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #176    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 176

Today's Topics:
			    Handed amino acids
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  1 May 1982 2102-PDT
From: Cabral at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: Handed amino acids
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC
cc:   CABRAL at SUMEX-AIM

  Perhaps this is well known to most space buffs, but it struck
me as fascinating that even right-handed amino acids were previously
known.  Most chemical processes that produce handed molecules statistically
produce equal amounts of the left and right handed varieties.  The
notable exceptions are instances where some agent biases the formation
of one type over the other.  Biological systems are of course quite
adept at this, but they themselves are chiral (handed)
and so they are propogating their own chirality.  Another potential agent
could be circularly polarized light, but if that was responsible I would
be curious to learn of the mechanism whereby it is produced in space.
I can think of a few far-fetched schemes, but they aren't very
plausible.  If a meteorite with purely right-handed amino acids
were found, an extension that supposed the existence of one with
purely left-handed amino acids seems safe to me. Therefore the spectacular
discovery would have been finding the purely right-handed amino acids.
Is it possible that the original discovery of amino acids was a
racemic mixture (both left and right handed molecules in equal
amounts) ?
                     Art
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-May-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #177    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 177

Today's Topics:
			    handed amino acids
		       Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule
			Re: shuttle engine blowup?
		       Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 May 1982 20:43:18-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: Cabral at sumex-aim
Subject: handed amino acids
Cc: space at mit-mc

   I think the whole point of this story was that amino acids had
previously been found in space but only in racemic mixtures.

------------------------------

Date: Thu Apr 29 16:45:16 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!nsc!bill at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

Article-I.D.: nsc.154

	OPF	== 	Or P and F registers
	OMS	==	Output Memory Storage
	SRB	==	Shift Right Both
	KSC	==	Kernel System Call 
 ...
	OMS	foo,13
	OPF,OPF,SRB
	KSC $read	; read from device 13 into foo (words address)
 ...

------------------------------

Date: Thu Apr 29 23:21:02 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley
Subject: Re: shuttle engine blowup?
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

Article-I.D.: intelqa.110

	I don't know too many details, but as I understand it one of the
engines for Challenger blew up durring a test firing last week. The engine
was about 1.5 minutes into a 2 minute test firing at 109% of engine thrust.
(I never have liked it when people use numbers greater than 100%...) The
engineers suspect one of the fuel pumps (I think) was the cause of the disaster
since it was slightly hotter than expected just prior to the explosion.
I heard nothing about schedule, but if I hear anymore, I will put it on
the net.
						murray at intelqa

------------------------------

Date: Fri Apr 30 12:34:44 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!hao!gillil at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

Article-I.D.: hao.228

y
 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #178    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 178

Today's Topics:
			 Amino acids in meteorite
		       Re: Ion Engines/Accelerators
			   Re.saturn V engines
			      Saturn 5 plume
			    orbital mechanics
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  3 May 1982 0933-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Amino acids in meteorite
To: space at MIT-MC

I'd take that amino acid story with several grains of salt.  Others have
done the same experiment on the same meteorite and have failed to detect
L-amino acids by themselves.  There is an obvious eror mechanism - 
contamination by terrestrial life.  I know that they said that special
precautions were taken, but no one's perfewct.

------------------------------

Date: Fri Apr 30 00:34:10 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!ucbvax!npois!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at CCA
Subject: Re: Ion Engines/Accelerators
Article-I.D.: whuxlb.228
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

Interesting suggestion by Dietz@USC-ECl, using magnetic fields to accelerate
the plasma ions.  That is precisely the MAIN drive of an ion engine, however.

=Ned=

------------------------------

Date: Fri Apr 30 10:52:58 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!houxi!houxg!lime!we13!ges at CCA
Subject: Re.saturn V engines
Article-I.D.: we13.242
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

 In reply to Mr Phil Karn of murray hill 
	What you say about the fuel and oxidizer being completely
	mixed is true. The color change is coused by impurities
	in the ambient air.
		G.E.Smith 6565
		we13

------------------------------

Date: Mon May  3 19:08:58 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at CCA
Subject: Saturn 5 plume
Article-I.D.: utzoo.1619
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

The underexpanded-exhaust explanation is, I think, the correct one.
There are several reasons why a rocket engine may not expand its exhaust
to the ambient pressure, like constraints on how long and heavy the
nozzle can be, but the big limit is that any fixed nozzle is necessarily
right for only *one* ambient pressure.  This means that as the rocket
climbs, underexpansion inevitably occurs as the outside pressure drops.

In fact, I seem to recall that there was an optional nozzle extension
designed for the F-1.  I don't think it ever got used, but its existence
suggests that the F-1 may not have been optimally expanded even at
sea level.

There are engine concepts that are optimally expanded over a considerable
range of pressures, but they are very different from orthodox nozzles,
and as far as I know none of them has ever been used "for real".

------------------------------

Date: Mon May  3 19:40:13 1982
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at CCA
Subject: orbital mechanics
Article-I.D.: utzoo.1620
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

I strongly second Jerry Pournelle's recommendation of Max Hunter's
"Thrust Into Space" as the best text on orbital mechanics (and an
excellent introduction to propulsion systems, too).  It is difficult
to write a book on the subject which is neither so oversimplified
that it insults the intelligence, nor so mathematical that it is
accessible only to specialists.  Hunter succeeded.  "Thrust Into Space"
was part of a Holt-Rinehart-Winston series of space books aimed at
high schools and the like;  Hunter's is the only one worth looking at
twice.  Using no math beyond simple algebra, he manages to discuss
everything from basic rocket principles to the basics of relativistic
starflight.  When the math would get too hairy, he draws graphs instead.
Five stars.

I have one other recommendation if you want something more detailed and
have some math background.  Archie E. Roy's "The Foundations of
Astrodynamics", Macmillan 1965, is good.  You will need a good grounding
in calculus and some idea of what vectors are about.  Given this, the
book discusses everything I have ever wanted to know about the subject.
For example, about halfway through he gives a fairly detailed discussion
of the three-body problem, including the Lagrange points (and such subtle
items as why L4 and L5 are unstable unless the masses of the two major
bodies involved are very different -- they don't work for binary stars!).
This is one of the few nontrivial celestial-mechanics books I have run
into that is aware that rockets exist;  older books in particular spend
lots of time on planets and none on things that can (gasp) *change* orbit.

Unfortunately, *both* of these books are out of print, and have been for
quite some time.  I've never seen either of them secondhand, despite a
lot of looking.  I finally found libraries which had them, and took the
time, effort, and expense to xerox both of them in their entirety.
(Regarding the ethics of xeroxing:  I would be happy to pay the authors
reasonable royalties for my copies, if I knew how much and where to send
the cheques, and could be sure of not being hassled by third parties like
publishers.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-May-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #179    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 179

Today's Topics:
			 Aviation week excerpt  
			    orbital mechanics
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 04 May 1982 1542-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Aviation week excerpt  
To:   space at MIT-MC  


Washington Roundup

	Space policy address by President Reagan at Edwards AFB, Calif 
after the landing of the fourth space shuttle mission July 4 is under
consideration at the White House.  One important element of the policy
already decided is that support for development of a full shuttle-based
operational space transportation system will be continued even if
an orbiter vehicle and crew were to be lost in a major accident.  Such
sustained support for an operational system has never been declared 
previously, a factor in the reluctance of some payload sponsors to commit
to long term shuttle planning.  (START-BOLDFACE) President Reagan has
already directed that any significant shuttle program changes must be 
discussed directly with him. (END-BOLDFACE) Following the Mission 4
landing at Edwards three complete shuttle orbiters, the Columbia, the
new Challenger and the old Enterprise, will all be within towing distance
of each other, as a possible backdrop for a presidential space policy 
address.

From AWST May 3, 1982

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 1982 05:12-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: orbital mechanics
To: decvax!utzoo!henry at CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Re Max hunter's Book:
Max was at the L-5 convention and for a present brought me a
xeroxed copy of his book, it being long out of print.  It ought
to be back in print and if enough people wrote the publisher...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #180    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 180

Today's Topics:
			    orbital mechanics
			    out of print books
			   shuttle talk at MIT
		  Re: sri-unix.1403: out of print books
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 May 1982 06:30-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: orbital mechanics
To: POURNE at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, decvax!utzoo!henry at CCA-UNIX

oops Xerox copy of...

------------------------------

Date:    5-May-82 8:47AM-EDT (Wed)
From:    Bill Gropp <Gropp at YALE>
Subject: out of print books
To:      Space at MIT-MC

Dover is always looking for good out of print books to republish, in
quality, low cost editions.  It may be more productive to write them than
the original publisher.

------------------------------

Date:  5 May 1982 1658-EDT
From: S. W. Galley <SWG at MIT-XX>
Subject: shuttle talk at MIT
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: science-calendar at MIT-AI

From Tech Talk, 5 May:

"Air Force Maj. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, associate administrator
for NASA's Office of Space Transportation Systems, will discuss
the NASA Space Shuttle program Wednesday, May 12, at 4 pm in Rm.
35-225.  The seminar, open to the public, is sponsored by the
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics."

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 82 16:37:08-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!duke!hes at Berkeley
Subject: Re: sri-unix.1403: out of print books
Article-I.D.: duke.2119
Via:  news.usenet; 5 May 82 17:10-PDT


  Ann Arbor Microfilms used to have a service for copying
out of print books.  They would make a softbound copy
(looking like one of their hard-copy copies of a thesis)
and take care of all the royalty-permission details.  As
I remember they had a charge plus so much per page.
  --henry schaffer

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #181    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 181

Today's Topics:
	     Los Angeles Spacefanz: OASIS at Rockwell 22 May
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  6-May-82 13:04:18 PDT (Thursday)
From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Los Angeles Spacefanz: OASIS at Rockwell 22 May
To: Space@MC
cc: Hamilton.ES

"The Challenge of the Space Frontier" featuring C. J. Meechan, VP
Strategic Planning, North American Space Operations, Rockwell
International.  PLUS see the full-scale space shuttle mock-up and the
Apollo 14 Command Module.

TIME: Saturday 22 May 7 pm

PLACE:	Rockwell International, DEI Room
	12241 Lakewood Blvd.
	Downey, CA

No charge.  For more info, call (213) 374-1381

Presented by OASIS, the Southern Salifornia Chapter of the L-5 Society.

--Bruce

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-May-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #182    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 182

Today's Topics:
			 A new name for your list
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 May 1982 1547-EDT
Message-id: <389648838.44@MITRE>
From: lazear at MITRE
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: A new name for your list

Please add me to your distribution list.
	Walt Lazear

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #183    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 183

Today's Topics:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: MINSKY@MIT-AI
Date: 05/09/82 20:22:40

MINSKY@MIT-AI 05/09/82 20:22:40
To: space at MIT-MC
If you could flush the deuterium from the shuttle hydrogen fuel,
you'd gain .00007 in impulse.  Easy way to gain a few pounds of
payload.  I bet you could get rid of half the deuterium pretty
easily.  Almost surely not worth it, though?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #184    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 184

Today's Topics:
			      Administrivia
		   unduterated hydrogen for the shuttle
			    shuttle propulsion
		       Specific Impulse of SSMEs   
		     group investigates space station
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 May 1982 0203-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Administrivia
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I guess I should refresh everyone's memory on how the digest is
distributed.  People occasionally complain about the funny digests that
come out containing nothing but a request to be added to the list.  The
reason this sort of thing happens is that the digest is processed
automatically every night at 3AM pacific time.  Everything that has
arrived by then is gathered together, massaged into digest format, and
mailed out.  All without a smidgen of human intervention.  This has the
advantage that the show goes on even if I go home early or take a day or
two off or whatever.  The disadvantage is that a certain amount of junk
gets out.  Normally, however, the density of special requests that
mistakenly get sent to the digest distribution is low and most of the time
I notice the mistake in time to fix it, so this isn't much of a problem.
The biggest thing you can do is to make sure everyone you tell about this
list, knows that requests of all sorts (as distinct from digest
submissions) should be sent to SPACE-REQUEST @ MIT-MC and not to space@mc.

Note that I do have the ability to hold everything that comes in and go
over it personally.  I usually have to use the "manual" mode when we get a
spate of questionable messages.  Fortunately this does not happen often.

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this procedure.  I'm
always willing to entertain suggests and answer questions.

	Ted Anderson (The Moderator)

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 11 May 1982  08:43-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: unduterated hydrogen for the shuttle
To: space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	Maybe removing the Duterium from the Hydrogen fuel for the
Shuttle is reasonable.  Heavy water is used in many nuclear reacters.
	I tend to think that the Shuttle's demand FAR exceeds the
amount of overlight water the nuclear industry produces, however.

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 1982 at 1645-CDT
From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 
Subject: shuttle propulsion
To: space at mit-mc

Does anyone know the specific impulses developed by the SSME's and SRB's?

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 1982 0146-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Specific Impulse of SSMEs   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The specific impulse of the Space Shuttle Main Engines is very close to
450 seconds.  There is some variation between engines and so forth, but I
think the variation amounts to less than 5 seconds.  I don't know the
number for the SRBs, but I'd estimate it to be between 250 and 300 seconds.
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 82 20:15-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
To: space at mc
Subject: group investigates space station

!a268  1813  11 May 82
AM-Space Station,160
Official Says Group Will Begin Work Soon On Space-Station Plans
    ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - Within a few weeks a task force will begin
developing plans for an orbiting space station that would be launched
by the end of the decade, a space agency official says.
    The group is expected to submit its first recommendations in five
months as part of NASA's 1984 budget request to Congress, said Terry
Finn, deputy director of industry affairs for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
    NASA's top officials consider a manned orbiting platform a ''logical
extension'' of the space shuttle program, but have not decided on its
design, he said.
    Space officials have yet to convince Congress and the Reagan
administration of the need for such a station, he said.
    ''We can't afford not to build it,'' Finn told the Orlando Sentinel.
''If NASA doesn't think about its future, it won't have a future.
    ''We're still seeking approval for a go-ahead. My understanding is
that we're getting some positive signals from the administration.''
    
ap-ny-05-11 2113EDT
**********

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #185    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 185

Today's Topics:
				NASA News
			  Re: fund raising idea
		       Specific Impulse of SSMEs   
			   lunar colony designs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 May 82 7:21:39-EDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: NASA News
Article-I.D.: alice.559
Via:  news.usenet; 12 May 82 6:45-PDT

As part of the new NASA $6.6 billion budget approved by the Senate
Commerce Committee suggests that the Air Force pay more for shuttle
launchings than it has in the past.  The precise figure for them
is proposed to be $409 million, which will be distributed along
for other programs.

In other news, NASA announced the forming of a committee to make
up plans for a space station to be launched by the end of the
decade.  Their first report will be submitted in five months.
The agency must still convince the White House and Congress on
the idea, though.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 82 11:28:35-EDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!allegra!phr at Berkeley
Subject: Re: fund raising idea
Article-I.D.: allegra.374
Via:  news.usenet; 12 May 82 9:57-PDT

It's a good idea, but prohibited by US Federal law.  If you want to
contribute money to the space effort, I suggest that you join the Space
Studies Institute, 195 Nassau St., Princeton, NJ 08540.  This group is
headed by Gerard K. O'Neill, and has funded construction of model mass
drivers, automated lunar chemical processing plants, and other
important ideas which haven't drawn government money.  They use their
funds much more efficiently than any government agency could, too.
$10/year gets you a quarterly newsletter.

If you want your money to go to NASA, you can contribute to Delta Vee,
3033 Moorpark Ave., Suite 27, San Jose  CA 95128.  They operate the
Viking Fund, which so far has given NASA over $100,000 to analyze data
which is still being transmitted from the Viking Landers (govt. funding
for data analysis dried up years ago), and the Halley Fund.  The Halley
Fund originally was to pay for a political campaign to get funding for
a NASA Halley probe.  This turned dismal, and they now (quixotically, I
think) hope to build and launch their own probe, paid for ($~100 million)
by contributions, sale of data, movie and TV rights, etc. etc.  They
have all sorts of gizmos for sale, like astronaut jackets, Fischer
space pens, and (I believe) the laser color prints of the Shuttle that
were discussed in net.space recently.  I should have suggested DV as a
worthier cause to buy the prints from when the topic was relevant.

Incidentally, NASA is not allowed to take donations for specific
purposes - only with no strings attached.  Horrible legal maneuvers
were performed (with NASA a happy participant) to make sure that
Viking Fund money was spent on Viking.

Re NASA help: NASA will lend movies, and even give presentations for
just about anyone who asks - they're a regular feature of many science
fiction conventions.  I've shown "Mars in 3-D", a stereoscopic movie
filmed on location by the Viking lander, for Delta Vee a few times.

Re feature length film: "A Space Movie" (that's the title) was shown
in NYC for several months last summer.  It's an excellent collection
of NASA footage; unfortunately I've forgotten who compiled or distributes
it.

--Paul

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 1982 04:34-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Specific Impulse of SSMEs   
To: OTA at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Jerry Kidd, who got a medal for his work on SSME, told me as we
watched the first Shuttle landing out at Edwards that the engine
was developing ~100 horsepower/lb.  Which is a impressive number...

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 1982 04:40-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: lunar colony designs
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

The Lunar colony Project of the L-5 Society will shortly have a
writeup on the model and preliminary design as developed at the
L-5 Conference.  It all looks good.  David Criswell, formerly
one of the lunar rocks custodians at Lunar and Planetary Institute
(Rice/JSC joint thingy) was "very pleasantly surprised" at the
solid work and contributions the project made.  There will be
more design sessins, and L-5 is hoping to have a constructable
model which can actually be costed in another year or less.
	Count Dr. Renaldo Petrini of the American Institute of
architects  and professor of architecture at the University of
Houston was in charge of the design project and has interested a
number of other professional architects in continued work on it.
	For more info see u pcoming issues of L-5 News...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #186    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Requests-To: Space-Request at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 186

Today's Topics:
			 Shuttle Ready by 27 June
		       rating rockes in horsepower
		   Specific impulse & chamber pressure
			   Horsepower & rockets
				  STS IV
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 May 82 7:21:11-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Ready by 27 June
Article-I.D.: alice.561
Via:  news.usenet; 13 May 82 8:35-PDT

NASA announced yesterday that the space shuttle Columbia will be
moved to the VAB in five days and then rolled to the launch pad,
for four weeks of testing, on 22 May.  NASA said that the machine
itself should be ready for a launch on 27 June; this is not a launch
date yet however:  The astronauts, the payload, the technicians,
and others must also be ready.  This flight, STS-4, the last test
flight, will carry aboard more experiments and also a DoD package,
of which nature will not be released.

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 1982 1835-EDT (Thursday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: pournelle at MIT-MC
Subject:  rating rockes in horsepower
CC: space at MIT-MC
Message-Id: <13May82 183506 DS30@CMU-10A>

Rating rockets in horsepower is mainly useful for producing impressive
numbers.  The horsepower equivalent of a pound of thrust is directly
proportional to the velocity.  When the SSMEs are firing on the pad with
the holddowns on, the SSMEs produce zero horsepower.  But 3 x 430,000
pounds applied at 17,000 mph comes to 58,480,000 horsepower.

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 1982 1844-EDT (Thursday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  Specific impulse & chamber pressure
Message-Id: <13May82 184444 DS30@CMU-10A>

I have read a couple of times (AW&ST, not recently) that the SSMEs
develop a chamber pressure of 300 bar (atmospheres).  I have also
read a couple of times (FLIGHT International) that the Ariane's first
stage engines develop about 55 bar.  Is such a difference credible?
I would expect exhaust velocity and specific impulse to be directly
related to the chamber pressure.  Such a difference in specific
impulse seems hard to swallow.

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 82 11:56:18-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Berkeley
Subject: Horsepower & rockets
Article-I.D.: eagle.294
Via:  news.usenet; 13 May 82 20:39-PDT

Can somebody explain to me how the measure "horsepower" is relevant
to rockets?  I guess you could look at the raw energy content of the
propellants, or the kinetic energy/second imparted to the propellants,
but the useful output of a rocket is force, not force*distance/time,
which is power.  For example, if I bolt a rocket to a test stand,
it generates zero horsepower, no matter what the thrust.

Of course, it would be reasonable to measure the output of
fuel pump turbines, APUs, etc in horsepower, since they resemble
conventional engines.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 82 22:22:08-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley
Subject: STS IV
Article-I.D.: intelqa.121
Via:  news.usenet; 14 May 82 2:43-PDT

	Does anybody have a DEFINITIVE date for launch and landing of
STS 4? Has NASA nailed the date down yet? The best I've heard so far
was launch on June 27th -- land on July 4th, but the article implied
there was still plenty of play in those dates.
					murray at intelqa

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #187    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Requests-To: Space-Request at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 187

Today's Topics:
			  SSME chamber pressure
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 May 1982 0958-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: SSME chamber pressure
To: david.smith at CMU-10A, space at MIT-MC

You have to be careful talking about the SSME chamber pressure because
the engine has (I think) two chambers.  The first is where the H2 and O2
get mixed together.  They finish buringing in the second, which is connected
to the nozzle.

The SSME pressure is quite high; I seem to remember it being at least twice
that of the Apollo engines.  Also, what does the Ariane first stage burn?
Kerosene?  This may give a lower pressure.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #188    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Requests-To: Space-Request at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 188

Today's Topics:
			  Horsepower and rockets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  15 May 1982 12:48 edt
From:  Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Horsepower and rockets
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 14 May 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson

Apples and oranges, but both relevant.  The specific impulse of a rocket
says how much "bang" you get per unit of mass of the propellant.  (For
example, a stick of dynamite and a long candle may put out the same
amount of energy, but the TNT has higher specific impulse.)  The
horsepower simply says how much total propulsion effort you get out of
the rocket.  You can double a rocket's horsepower by doubling the mass
of fuel in it (very roughly speaking) if the net effect is to double the
engine's burn time, all else remaining equal.  Horsepower is the same
beast as "total impulse" and consists of the same unit dimensionality as
Newton-seconds or watts.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-May-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #189    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Requests-To: Space-Request at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 189

Today's Topics:
				Space News
			 Iskra-2 (RS-9) launched!
			 Shuttle Rollout Delayed
		    New Soviet Amateur Radio Satellite
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 May 82 18:12:30-EDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Space News
Article-I.D.: alice.574
Via:  news.usenet; 17 May 82 15:46-PDT

Two Soviet cosmonauts, launched last week in a new Soyez T-5
rocket, reactivated systems aboard the new Salyut 7 space   
station after linking with it 26 hours after launch.  The
astronauts were said to be feeling fine and the station was
reported to be operating normally.

In American space news, Jack Lousma, commander of STS-3 said
that he and Gordon Fullerton experienced normal amounts of
radiation during their flight aboard the shuttle.  NASA is
concerned that long exposures to space, such as might be
encountered during stints on space stations, could endanger
the lives of the astronauts with respect to radiation.

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 82 18:48:37-EDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Berkeley
Subject: Iskra-2 (RS-9) launched!
Article-I.D.: eagle.305
Via:  news.usenet; 17 May 82 17:50-PDT

I have just read an AP newswire story announcing that the Soviets
aboard Salyut-7 launched an "experimental amateur radio satellite" out
the door.  It weighs 62 lbs and is named Iskra-2.  I spoke with Tom
Clark, W3IWI, Amsat president, who says that Iskra-2 is transmitting
on 29.58 Mhz.  There will be a special Amsat net tonight at 9pm EDT
on 3850 Khz where Tom will disseminate further information.

Phil Karn, KA9Q/2

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 82 20:04:16-EDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Rollout Delayed
Article-I.D.: alice.576
Via:  news.usenet; 17 May 82 19:06-PDT

The space shuttle Columbia's rollout to the VAB will be delayed
at least seven hours, while technicians replace a faulty valve
in its main engines.  The delay is not expected to expect other
launch preparations.  Officials expect the movement to the VAB
to start at 1900 EDT Tuesday, followed by a roll out to the
launch pad on 25 May; target date for STS-4's launch is 27 June.

Meanwhile, the space shuttle Challenger is almost finished and
is expected to be moved out of its hangar near 30 June.  It will
be towed to Edwards Air Force Base, where it will be mated atop
a 747 and flown to Cape Canaveral.  If all goes right, it and
the prototype shuttle Enterprise will be within towing distance
of the Columbia when it touches down after STS-4.

In other Soviet Space news, Moscow has announced that the cosmonauts
aboard the Salyut 7 space station have launched a communications
satellite by shoving it out of an air lock.  While Tass said that
this was an ingenious new launch, it has been done before by the
Soviets.

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 82 22:11:59-EDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Berkeley
Subject: New Soviet Amateur Radio Satellite
Article-I.D.: eagle.307
Via:  news.usenet; 17 May 82 20:53-PDT

Here's some information from the Amsat net this evening:

The payload booted out the door of Salyut-7 is identifying itself as
"RK02" on 29.58 mhz.  [What happens when they get to RK05, 6, etc?
Do they have clearance from DEC? -hi-]  It is not yet known if this
payload has a communications transponder.

Telemetry format is similar to the RS-[3-8] series already in orbit:
5 groups of 4 characters each.

The current orbital period of RK02 is 91.349464 minutes and it is
crossing the equator 22.226506 degrees further west on each orbit.

Due to the VERY low orbit, this period will decay rapidly.
For example, the average period tomorrow will decrease to 91.345922
minutes.

Equator crossing times and longitudes:
18 May 00:32:29 UTC @ 237.1 W
19 May 00:54:02 UTC @ 248.7 W

Phil Karn, KA9Q
Bell Labs, Murray Hill

PS.  I would like to get some guidance as to whether information on
amateur radio satellites should be double-posted to net.space and
net.ham-radio, since the amateur space program spans both subject
areas .  Reply directly to ME, please, and I will abide by the majority
opinion; I don't want to start up a big public controversy.  Thanks.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #190    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 190

Today's Topics:
		      Salyut, SpaceLab, SkyLab query
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 May 82 19:07:12-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!watmath!watarts!geo at Berkeley
Subject: Salyut, SpaceLab, SkyLab query
Article-I.D.: watarts.1254
Via:  news.usenet; 18 May 82 20:31-PDT

Is there anyone out there who is in a position to explain
the difference between the various orbiting platforms?
Are all the previous Salyuts still up there?  How do these
beasts compare in size?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #191    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 191

Today's Topics:
			      Shuttle in VAB
		       Columbia to be Mated Tonight
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 May 82 7:22:08-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle in VAB
Article-I.D.: alice.579
Via:  news.usenet; 19 May 82 8:50-PDT

The Columbia was moved to its Vehicle Assembly Building this morning
at 0050 EDT, behind schedule due to miscalculations on the part of
ground crews.  THe delay is not expected to have much, if any, impact
on the launch, now scheduled for 27 June.  The shuttle spent a record
41 days in the OPF, and will spend 7 or 8 in the VAB.

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 1982 1438-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Aviation Week excerpts (from the May 17, 1982 issue)

Piece of the Rock

	Space Transportation Co., which has submitted a proposal to 
NASA and the Administration for private funding of the fifth shuttle
orbiter in exchange for space transportation system marketing rights,
now has the Prudential Insurance Co. as its primary financing partner.
Space Transportation Co. has told NASA and the White House it is ready
to commit $150 million in private funds in Fiscal 1983 to help initiate
procurement of a fifth shuttle orbiter.

Page 50 contains a full page ad for Exocet missiles (the one that sunk
the HMS Sheffield).  How timely....  --Tom

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 82 19:58:47-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Columbia to be Mated Tonight
Article-I.D.: alice.583
Via:  news.usenet; 19 May 82 20:42-PDT

The space shuttle Columbia will be mated with its external tank
and SRB's over the night.  By the time I received the AP story,
the shuttle was ``within inches'' of the position in which it
is kept to be mated.  The mating process takes seven hours.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #192    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 192

Today's Topics:
			   Mating Process Begun
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 May 82 7:21:44-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Mating Process Begun
Article-I.D.: alice.584
Via:  news.usenet; 20 May 82 11:05-PDT

The mating process of the shuttle and her tank and boosters began
yesterday at 1440 EDT and has been going smoothly since.  If there
were no hitches, it should have been completed around 2200 EDT last
night.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-May-82  0301	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #193    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 193

Today's Topics:
		     Detection of planets using VLBI
			       Space Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: BRUC@MIT-ML
Date: 05/23/82 14:05:13
Subject: Detection of planets using VLBI

BRUC@MIT-ML 05/23/82 14:05:13 Re: Detection of planets using VLBI
To: space at MIT-MC
	There was article in this month's Scientific American (June) describing
the resolution obtainable with Very Long Baseline Interferometry, specifically
about 0.0001 arc second. The example they gave was the ability to see a human 
hand at the distance of the moon. At a distance of 100 light years, this is
a resolution of 250000 kilometers, which would be adequate to separate a radio
bright planet from its sun. Does anyone know if the sensitivity of radio
telescopes would be adequate to detect the earth, the sun or Jupiter at 
interstellar ranges, and if so, has anyone tried observing likely candidate
stars which may have planets (like Barnard's star or 61 Cygni)?

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 82 7:16:43-PDT (Sat)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Space Plants
Article-I.D.: alice.587
Via:  news.usenet; 23 May 82 11:06-PDT

Plants that rode aboard STS-3 developed 20 to 30 percent more protein
than those on the Earth, biologists said yesterday.  They also noted
that the lignin content, which helps the plants grow upward, was not
lessened by lack of gravity, as had been thought; they say that longer
exposures to zero-gravity may be necessary to diminish lignin content.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #194    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 194

Today's Topics:
			radio detection of planets
				  Advice
			      Extremely LBI
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 May 1982 0850-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: redford at WAFER
Subject: radio detection of planets
Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11826242549.24.583.11334 at DEC-MARLBORO>

Unfortunately, planets give off too little radio energy to be detected
across interstellar distances.  Most stars, in fact are extremely weak
radio sources, which makes sense if you think about how black
body radiation drops off with frequency.  Unless there is a nice
coherent radio beam pointing at you,say an alien's "I Love Lucy", there
just isn't enough power being given off.
   --------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1982 1021-CDT
Message-id: <391101691.14@DTI>
From: marick at DTI (Brian Marick)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Advice

	Joan and I will be going to see the fourth shuttle
launch. Any advice, suggestions, or horror stories would be
appreciated.
				brian
-----

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 24 May 1982  08:39-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: Extremely LBI
To: space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	I was reading about Very Long Baseline Interferometry in
Scinetific American.  It appears that it is possible to operate a
group of radio telescopes, mutually very far apart, as a single unit
even if they are not connected to each other.
	Is anybody thinking of lunar based radio telescopes?  The four
telescopes necessary to cancel out desynchronization problems for A.
M. studies can be on the Earth, the Moon, and the two Trojan points.
(But does anyone know if the distance between the telescopes must
remain strictly constant?  I wouldn't think so, because a clot of
"thick air" moving in front of ne telescope is equivalent to it's
sinking into the Earth an appropriate distance.)
	When we're finished with that, we can do phase studies by
planting telescopes at each of the two Earth/Sun trojan points.  We
can't do amplitude studies in this manner, but we'll still get the
resolution.  Except for the fact that a target planet would probably
rotate, blurring our images, it should be possible todistinguish
\continents/ on Alpha Centuri's inhabited planets!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-May-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #195    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 195

Today's Topics:
		      Shuttle Inspected for Rollout
		       Shuttle Mating Process Begun
			  Space Shuttle Upgrade
			    guidance programs
			      NYT Excerpt   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 May 82 19:37:52-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Inspected for Rollout
Article-I.D.: alice.593
Via:  news.usenet; 25 May 82 4:51-PDT

Workers began to inspect the space shuttle Columbia today to
make sure that all hookups with its external tank and SRB's
are secures and that communications with other systems are
active.  Following that, the shuttle will be placed on its
crawler tomorrow and rolled to pad 39A on Wednesday.  Nine
gaps of tiles remain to be filled, some to be filled tomorrow,
some on the pad.  The turnaround time was cut by a week from
the post-STS-2 turnaround time (this is in the VAB) due to
elimination and integration of some tests and the elimination
of mock missions.

------------------------------

Date:  23 May 1982 16:42 edt
From:  Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Shuttle Mating Process Begun
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 21 May 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson

After the seven-hour mating process was completed, Dr. Abel Resnicke,
supervisor of NASA's Vehicular Husbandry team, expressed his team's hope
for an offspring with daddy's wings and momma's nozzles.

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 1982 0907-MDT
From: Pendleton at UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Space Shuttle Upgrade
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Pendleton at UTAH-20
In-Reply-To: Your message of 25-May-82 0402-MDT

     I have just heard that Hercules Areospace has be given a contract
to develop carbon composite cases to replace the steel cases being used
on the space shuttle solid rocket motors (SRM).  While the cases will be built
by Hercules, Thiakol (sp?), the current contractor, will still load, assemble,
and refurbish the SRMs.   The use of carbon composite casings is expected
to increase shuttle payload by 30 to 50 percent.  I have no information
on delivery dates or costs.

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 1982 at 1937-CDT
From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 
Subject: guidance programs
To: space at mit-mc


Just out of personal curiosity, is there some way I could (legally) get
a copy of a guidance program for an orbital launch vehiclee? I'm mainly
interested in the basic algorithm (or algorithms) used in this application.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 1982 1829-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: NYT Excerpt   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

[The following is an excerpt from a New York Times wire service article
on the President's visit to California.  The whole article can be obtained
from me (TAW@SAIL) if anyone is interested.  The rest of the article is
not space-related, however. --Tom]

n089  1800  25 May 82
AM-REAGAN
President Scores Congressional Democrats
c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service
         .
         .
         .
    Tuesday afternoon, Reagan received a warm reception from several
thousand workers at the plant of Rockwell International, builders of
the space shuttle and the B-1 bomber.
    Standing before the partly completed workings of the Discovery, the
third of the space shuttles, Reagan defended his economic policies
and said it was essential to increase military spending ''to send a
signal to the rest of the world.''
    In response to questions from the audience, Reagan said to
thundering applause, ''This president believes in the space
program.'' And he said he also considered the B-1 bomber, which his
administration is committed to build, to be a part of the space
program.
    

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #196    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 196

Today's Topics:
			  Shuttle Rollout Today
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 May 82 7:19:24-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Rollout Today
Article-I.D.: alice.596
Via:  news.usenet; 26 May 82 23:33-PDT

The space shuttle Columbia was put on its crawler yesterday,
and today it will be rolled out to pad 39A where it will
undergo a month of tests before its launch, scheduled for
17 June.  The rollout should start at 0800 EDT and take
several hours, as the shuttle will move at a top speed of
1 mph.  The tests on the pad will include a mock countdown
with astronauts Ken Mattingly and Henry Hartsfield and an
external tank test, in which the external tank will be filled
with liquids oxygen and hydrogen.  After that, a secret DoD
package will be loaded aboard.  No information will be given
as to its nature, and pictures from the shuttle will be
restricted.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #197    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 197

Today's Topics:
			    lunar eclipses    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 May 1982 1043-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: lunar eclipses    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

	Date: Wednesday, 26 May 1982  10:55-PDT
	From: KING at KESTREL
	Subject: lunar eclipses
	To: space-request at mit-mc
	cc: King at KESTREL

		Does anyone know when the Lunar eclipses will take place this
	year?

						Dick

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #198    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 198

Today's Topics:
			    re: Extremely LBI
				 ECLIPSES
		    Lunar eclipses scheduled for 1982
		[Re: SPACE Digest V2 #197, Lunar Eclipses]
[Joyce Eikenberry (VLD/ATB)  <joycee at BRL>: 1982 Lunar Eclipse schedule  (60 lines)]
			      lunar eclipses
			      Lunar eclipses
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 May 82 15:28:06-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!hao!pack at Berkeley
Subject: re: Extremely LBI
Article-I.D.: hao.249
Via:  news.usenet; 28 May 82 3:19-PDT

      Extremely long baseline interferometry does indeed promise fine
resolution pictures.  The June 82 Scientific American article didn't
mention some of the problems inherent in extending the system to even
longer baselines.  Time standards must be more accurate as spacing
between telescopes increases.  In addition, a higher data rate is needed
to fully define these finer fringes.  Present methods (atomic clocks
and video tape units) would have to be reevaluated to determine their
adequacy for even longer baselines such as earth-moon distances.
      Another point to remember is that many different baselines are
needed to allow a unique inversion of fringe data and a picture to be
made.  The terrestial baseline's projection on the sky varies on a
daily basis.  A space system based on the earth-moon system would
have a natural 28 day period.
      Finally, the limited "light" gathering power of individual dishes
must be considered.  If steerable dishes in an imagined earth-moon system
were to be limited to about 200 feet in diameter (as present units are),
the increased resolution would not be accompanied by increased signal
power.  Hence such a system would be limited to studying objects with
small angular detail coupled with extreme radio brightness.  It therefore
seems unlikely that such a system could identify stellar planetary systems.

--Dan Packman
ucbvax!menlo70!hao!pack

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 1982 0338-PDT (Friday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: ECLIPSES
To: SPACE at MC

Mail-from: koolish@BBN-UNIX; 14 May 1982 0820-EDT
Via: bbnp.ARPAnet; Fri May 14 05:54:15 1982
Date: 14 May 1982  8:20:32 EDT (Friday)
From: Dick Koolish <koolish at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Lunar Eclipse
To: list/astro: at BBN-UNIX


----BEGINNING OF FORWARDED MESSAGES----
Date:     10 May 82 13:55:28-EDT (Mon)
From:     Joyce Eikenberry (VLD/ATB)  <joycee at BRL>
To:       Arpanet-BBoards at MIT-ML
Subject:  1982 Lunar Eclipse schedule  (60 lines)
Redistributed-by: David Mankins <dm at BBN-RSM>
Redistributed-to: koolish@BBN-RSM
Redistributed-date: 13 May 1982 16:51:53 EDT (Thursday)

According to an article in The Mother Earth News Magazine (and probably
other publications as well, but TMEN is the one I read) there will be 
not one, but TWO total lunar eclipses during 1982.  The first will occur
on July 6th, the second on December 30th; both will be visible through-
out most of the United States.  

With volcanic dust from Mt. St. Helen's still in Earth's atmosphere, the 
color displays across the face of the Moon should be spectacular.  And, 
if you miss both of these eclipses, you probably won't get another chance 
to see one (unless you travel a lot, and unless your travel coincides 
with an eclipse elsewhere in the world) until close to the end of this 
decade.  

So "...don't miss that rare and beautiful hour when the fair face of the 
Moon is shadowed and rose-tinted...you'll be glad you gave up your warm
and comfortable bed for it."

Here's the timetable: 
                           July 6

EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME:

12:22a.m.  moon enters penumbra
 1:33a.m.  moon enters umbra; partial phase begins
 2:38a.m.  moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins
 3:31a.m.  mid-eclipse 
 4:24a.m.  moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends
 5:29a.m.  moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends 
*5:35a.m.  sunrise
*5:50a.m.  moonset 
 6:40a.m.  moon leaves penumbra

                         December 30

EASTERN STANDARD TIME:

 3:52a.m.  moon enters penumbra 
 4:50a.m.  moon enters umbra; partial phase begins
 5:58a.m.  moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins 
 6:29a.m.  mid-eclipse
 6:59a.m.  moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends
*7:20a.m.  sunrise 
*7:35a.m.  moonset  
 8:07a.m.  moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends  
 9:06a.m.  moon leaves penumbra

               *Approximate times for latitude 40 degrees north  in
		the middle of the eastern time zone.   If you're
		better at math than I am (and 'most  anybody is) you
		can figure exact times for  "here".

Happy viewing! 

joycee

----END OF FORWARDED MESSAGES----

Mail-from: koolish@BBN-UNIX; 23 May 1982 1952-EDT
Via: bbnp.ARPAnet; Sun May 23 17:19:43 1982
Date: 23 May 1982 19:52:07 EDT (Sunday)
From: Dick Koolish <koolish at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: lunar eclipse
To: list/astro: at BBN-UNIX


----BEGINNING OF FORWARDED MESSAGES----
Date: 22 May 1982 22:57 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Lunar Eclipse
To: koolish at BBN-UNIX

Note that times for eclipse are absolute times, i.e. you have to add
or subtract according to what time zone you're in, but within a zone
the numbers are exactly correct no matter where you are.  The times
for sunrise and moonset however are local time. If you live 2 hours 15
minutes of longitude west, the event happens 2 hours 15 minutes later
in realtime, so you have to add 2 hours 15 minutes then subtract how
many hours of time zone you are different. To a first approximation the
answer is zero (plus or minus about a half hour) because time zones
correspond to longitude (sort of). Of course latitude also affects
sunrise and moonset, but you need trigonomotry or an almanac to figure
out or look up that effect.


----END OF FORWARDED MESSAGES----

-------------

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 1982 0655-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: Lunar eclipses scheduled for 1982
Subject: courtesy of your local Coca-Cola bottler...
Subject: [    Joyce Eikenberry (VLD/ATB)  <joycee at BRL>:  1982 Lun...]
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
To: Space at MIT-MC
Cc: wmartin at OFFICE-8
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]28-May-82 06:55:02.WMARTIN>

(My host doesn't recognize "KESTREL" as a host name, so I can't
send this directly to the requester, "King@Kestrel".)

I pulled this off our bboard:
	
Begin forwarded message
Mail from MIT-ML rcvd at 13-May-82 1331-PDT
Date:     10 May 82 13:55:28-EDT (Mon)
From:     Joyce Eikenberry (VLD/ATB)  <joycee at BRL>
To:       Arpanet-BBoards at MIT-ML
Subject:  1982 Lunar Eclipse schedule  (60 lines)
Remailed-date: 13 May 1982 1617-EDT
Remailed-from: Arpanet-BBoards-Request at MIT-ML

According to an article in The Mother Earth News Magazine (and probably
other publications as well, but TMEN is the one I read) there will be 
not one, but TWO total lunar eclipses during 1982.  The first will occur
on July 6th, the second on December 30th; both will be visible through-
out most of the United States.  

With volcanic dust from Mt. St. Helen's still in Earth's atmosphere, the 
color displays across the face of the Moon should be spectacular.  And, 
if you miss both of these eclipses, you probably won't get another chance 
to see one (unless you travel a lot, and unless your travel coincides 
with an eclipse elsewhere in the world) until close to the end of this 
decade.  

So "...don't miss that rare and beautiful hour when the fair face of the 
Moon is shadowed and rose-tinted...you'll be glad you gave up your warm
and comfortable bed for it."

Here's the timetable: 
                           July 6

EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME:

12:22a.m.  moon enters penumbra
 1:33a.m.  moon enters umbra; partial phase begins
 2:38a.m.  moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins
 3:31a.m.  mid-eclipse 
 4:24a.m.  moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends
 5:29a.m.  moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends 
*5:35a.m.  sunrise
*5:50a.m.  moonset 
 6:40a.m.  moon leaves penumbra

                         December 30

EASTERN STANDARD TIME:

 3:52a.m.  moon enters penumbra 
 4:50a.m.  moon enters umbra; partial phase begins
 5:58a.m.  moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins 
 6:29a.m.  mid-eclipse
 6:59a.m.  moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends
*7:20a.m.  sunrise 
*7:35a.m.  moonset  
 8:07a.m.  moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends  
 9:06a.m.  moon leaves penumbra

               *Approximate times for latitude 40 degrees north  in
		the middle of the eastern time zone.   If you're
		better at math than I am (and 'most  anybody is) you
		can figure exact times for  "here".

Happy viewing! 

joycee

          --------------------
End forwarded message
		
Regards, Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 1982 1014-EDT
From: ELF at MIT-DMS (Eric L. Flanzbaum)
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Message of 28 May 82 at 0302 PDT by OTA@S1-A
Subject: [Re: SPACE Digest V2 #197, Lunar Eclipses]
Message-id: <[MIT-DMS].233194>

Lunar Eclipses:

July 6th, 12:22am - 5:29am
December 30th, 3:52am - 6:59am

\ELF/

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 1982 1212-EDT
From: SWG at MIT-XX
Subject: [Joyce Eikenberry (VLD/ATB)  <joycee at BRL>: 1982 Lunar Eclipse schedule  (60 lines)]
To: space at MIT-MC

Mail-from: ARPANET site MIT-ML rcvd at 15-May-82 0248-EDT
Date:     10 May 82 13:55:28-EDT (Mon)
From:     Joyce Eikenberry (VLD/ATB)  <joycee at BRL>
To:       Arpanet-BBoards at MIT-ML
Subject:  1982 Lunar Eclipse schedule  (60 lines)
Remailed-date: 13 May 1982 1617-EDT
Remailed-from: Arpanet-BBoards-Request at MIT-ML

According to an article in The Mother Earth News Magazine (and probably
other publications as well, but TMEN is the one I read) there will be 
not one, but TWO total lunar eclipses during 1982.  The first will occur
on July 6th, the second on December 30th; both will be visible through-
out most of the United States.  

With volcanic dust from Mt. St. Helen's still in Earth's atmosphere, the 
color displays across the face of the Moon should be spectacular.  And, 
if you miss both of these eclipses, you probably won't get another chance 
to see one (unless you travel a lot, and unless your travel coincides 
with an eclipse elsewhere in the world) until close to the end of this 
decade.  

So "...don't miss that rare and beautiful hour when the fair face of the 
Moon is shadowed and rose-tinted...you'll be glad you gave up your warm
and comfortable bed for it."

Here's the timetable: 
                           July 6

EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME:

12:22a.m.  moon enters penumbra
 1:33a.m.  moon enters umbra; partial phase begins
 2:38a.m.  moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins
 3:31a.m.  mid-eclipse 
 4:24a.m.  moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends
 5:29a.m.  moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends 
*5:35a.m.  sunrise
*5:50a.m.  moonset 
 6:40a.m.  moon leaves penumbra

                         December 30

EASTERN STANDARD TIME:

 3:52a.m.  moon enters penumbra 
 4:50a.m.  moon enters umbra; partial phase begins
 5:58a.m.  moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins 
 6:29a.m.  mid-eclipse
 6:59a.m.  moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends
*7:20a.m.  sunrise 
*7:35a.m.  moonset  
 8:07a.m.  moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends  
 9:06a.m.  moon leaves penumbra

               *Approximate times for latitude 40 degrees north  in
		the middle of the eastern time zone.   If you're
		better at math than I am (and 'most  anybody is) you
		can figure exact times for  "here".

Happy viewing! 

joycee
-------

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 1982 1017-PDT
From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins )
Subject: lunar eclipses
To: space at MIT-MC


According to an article in The Mother Earth News Magazine (and probably
other publications as well, but TMEN is the one I read) there will be 
not one, but TWO total lunar eclipses during 1982.  The first will occur
on July 6th, the second on December 30th; both will be visible through-
out most of the United States.  

With volcanic dust from Mt. St. Helen's still in Earth's atmosphere, the 
color displays across the face of the Moon should be spectacular.  And, 
if you miss both of these eclipses, you probably won't get another chance 
to see one (unless you travel a lot, and unless your travel coincides 
with an eclipse elsewhere in the world) until close to the end of this 
decade.  

So "...don't miss that rare and beautiful hour when the fair face of the 
Moon is shadowed and rose-tinted...you'll be glad you gave up your warm
and comfortable bed for it."

Here's the timetable: 
                           July 6

EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME:

12:22a.m.  moon enters penumbra
 1:33a.m.  moon enters umbra; partial phase begins
 2:38a.m.  moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins
 3:31a.m.  mid-eclipse 
 4:24a.m.  moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends
 5:29a.m.  moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends 
*5:35a.m.  sunrise
*5:50a.m.  moonset 
 6:40a.m.  moon leaves penumbra

                         December 30

EASTERN STANDARD TIME:

 3:52a.m.  moon enters penumbra 
 4:50a.m.  moon enters umbra; partial phase begins
 5:58a.m.  moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins 
 6:29a.m.  mid-eclipse
 6:59a.m.  moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends
*7:20a.m.  sunrise 
*7:35a.m.  moonset  
 8:07a.m.  moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends  
 9:06a.m.  moon leaves penumbra

               *Approximate times for latitude 40 degrees north  in
		the middle of the eastern time zone.   If you're
		better at math than I am (and 'most  anybody is) you
		can figure exact times for  "here".

Happy viewing! 

joycee

-------

------------------------------

From: BRUC@MIT-ML
Date: 05/28/82 21:49:39
Subject:  Lunar eclipses

BRUC@MIT-ML 05/28/82 21:49:39 Re:  Lunar eclipses
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
	There will be two total lunar eclipses this year both visible from 
North America. The eclipse on July 6 will enter totality at 2:38 am EDT and
end at 4:24am EDT. The eclipse on December 30 with enter totality at 5:58
am EST and end 6:59 am EST. (From the 1982 Old Farmer's Almanac)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-May-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #199    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 199

Today's Topics:
		  Correction to 'Shuttle Rollout Today'
			      Shuttle at Pad
			      Mock Lift Off
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 May 82 19:37:26-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: mhtsa!ihnss!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Correction to 'Shuttle Rollout Today'
Article-I.D.: alice.598
Via:  news.usenet; 29 May 82 22:33-PDT

Normally I do not post corrections to articles.  However, this
error was more major than others.  I said that the launch date
for the shuttle was 17 June.  I meant 27 June, as I have said
before.

Sorry,
Adam

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 82 18:11:45-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: mhtsa!ihnss!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle at Pad
Article-I.D.: alice.597
Via:  news.usenet; 29 May 82 22:34-PDT

The space shuttle Columbia was rolled out of the VAB today at
0700 EDT and reached its pad at 1309 EDT.  The 3.5 mile trip
was completed without problems, and everything is on schedule.
One month of tests will be conducted on the shuttle to make sure
it is space-worthy.

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 82 22:08:36-PDT (Sat)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Mock Lift Off
Article-I.D.: alice.604
Via:  news.usenet; 30 May 82 1:46-PDT


The space shuttle Columbia underwent a mock mission today, 4.5
hours late.  Scheduled to begin at 1100 EDT, the countdown finished
and the Columbia 'lifted off' at 1520 EDT; nevertheless, the
mission was a success, and things are still on schedule for 27
June.  Three problems were encountered:
1)  A computer tried to read the hydraulic pressure inside the
    orbiter, but the hydraulics had not been turned on.
2)  A computer simultaneously told the shuttle to open and close
    cargo bay vents.
3)  A tracking station interrupted signals, which would have
    prevented the reception of data during a real flight.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-May-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #200    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 200

Today's Topics:
			  Halley's Comet Comment
			 new name to mailing list
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30-May-82 15:22:24 PDT (Sunday)
From: TManley.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Halley's Comet Comment
For: SPACE Digest 
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: TManley.Es

Summoned from the frozen infinity beyond the solar systems by cosmic
forces only dimly understand, Halley's comet is already rushing
precipitously toward its once-in-most-lifetimes hairpin turn around the
sun in 1986.

But most of us may miss the awesome sight of the great comet that has been
linked so closely with human history - because light pollution from our
cities now almost obliterates the wonders of the nighttime skys. Alone of
the generations of people who have filled history books with the fear and
awe inspired by the coming of the splendid comet every 76 years since 240
B.C., we may blind ourselves to its sight.

Light pollution now prevents most city dwellers and suburbanites from
seeing most of the stars at night. And it will probably keep them from
getting even a glimpse of the great comet that many of our parents ans
grandparents have talked about since its last flyby in 1910.

It doesn't have to be so, argues Fred Schaaf, a columnist for Astronomy
magazine. He's proposing that cities and towns begin planning now to dim
their artificial lights for a time - perhaps only half an hour or a half
an evening - on at least one of the days when the comets sweeps past so we
can see the historic phenomenon and the rest of the spectacularly starry
sky.

Schaaf is getting support from the Light Pollution Committee of the
Astronomical League, an organization of amateur astronomy clubs. And the
International Halley Watch, a group coordinating data on the comet's
reappearance, says reducing the artificial light on crucial nights would
help in collecting scientific observations.

It's such a lovely vision: the whole world turning down its lights and
looking up to the stars to share a cosmic wonder - not only with each
other but with eons of our ancestors.

But second thoughts are only a millisecond behind: We wouldn't dare turn
out the lights. It would be too dangerous. Remember the pillaging in New
York City during the power failure a few years ago. Bad things happen in
the dark. We can't look up because we have to keep looking out. Like the
ancients who thought that comets portend war and death of kings, we have
our own special fears that become more obvious in the light of Halley's
comet.

There's another reason for being cautious about Schaaf's proposal.
Halley's comet is swinging around the sun in a slightly different
trajectory in 1986 than it did in 1910, when it lighted up the night four
times more brightly than a full moon. It won't come nearly as close to the
earth this time and although it will be seen as much larger than a major
star, it won't appear to be any brighter. But its phenomenal tail should
be clearly visible to the naked eye and may seem to stretch a quarter of
the distance from the horizon to the top of the sky.

Halley watchers don't want people disappointed in their comet, after
centuries of build-up. So they are relucant to promise a celestial
superstar. And without superstar billing, it will be difficult to arrange
the necessary lights-out.

But there are other reasons than Halley's comet for considering turning
down the lights at night. In an enrgy-short age, our cities and suburbs
are wastefully over-illuminated. Studies show clear correlation between
municipal lighting levels and incidences of crime. Light pollution is a
growing problem for astronomers and increasingly interferes with their
observations. And light pollution forces millions of us to live in earthly
isolation without ever glimpsing the stars.

Schaaf thinks the most likely way to get a dim-out for comet watching is
for each metropolitan area and town to pick its own time and make its own
plans, including arrangements for increased security. Timing, he suggests,
should be based on local weather expectations.

The comet will first become visible in late 1985, when it sweeps past the
earth on its way toward the sun. As it speeds closer, solar winds and
radiation will brighten its tail - made up of cosmic dust, ice, gases and
debris left over from the formation of the universe - and stretch it out
for millions of miles across the sky.

Then the great comet will whip behind the sun and be flung back out across
the orbits of the planets toward what scientists now theorize may be a
sort of cold storage area for comets beyond the edges of the salor system.
Earthling will have several weeks to look at the comet as it streaks, tail
first, away from the sun in the early spring of 1986.

Halley's comet won't return from the frigid dark of outer space until
2062. Each sweep around the sun comsumes perhaps 1 percent of the comet's
fragile substance and eventually it will disintegrate, like several other
comets were known to do, into a collection of celestial debris.

It will sat something terrible about our cilization if most of us miss
seeing Halley's comet this time around - because we have blotted out the
nigh sky from our lives and are afraid to change and let ourselves look
up. Even if Halley's comet doesn't live up to its historic billing, we owe
ourselves an occasional look at the star.

			...The Mad Biker...

------------------------------

Mail-From: PCO-MULTICS received by MIT-MULTICS at 30-May-1982 23:40:20-edt
Date:  30 May 1982 23:33 edt
From:  Jarrell.FSOEP at PCO-MULTICS
Subject:  new name to mailing list
Reply-To:  Jarrell.FSOEP%pco-multics at MIT-MULTICS,
           RONJ at MIT-AI
To:  space at MIT-MC
Message-ID:  <820531033354.275060 at PCO-MULTICS>

I don't know if it will work or not,
but would you try adding the following address to the mailing list?

Jarrell.FSOEP%pco-multics@mit-multics

if you can send to it, please add it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #201    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 201

Today's Topics:
			    Lighting and crime
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  1 June 1982 00:12 edt
From:  Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Lighting and crime
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 31 May 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson

"But there are other reasons than Halley's comet for considering turning
down the lights at night.  In an enrgy-short age, our cities and suburbs
are wastefully over-illuminated.  Studies show clear correlation between
municipal lighting levels and incidences of crime."

What a revelation.  How about: "Studies show clear correlation between
incidences of crime and municipal lighting levels"?  Now that didn't
hurt, did it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #202    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 202

Today's Topics:
	       SPACE Digest V2 #200: ``spectacular comets''
			    Military in Space
		     Military & Space, DOD 82-1, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: BANDY@MIT-AI
Date: 06/01/82 08:26:21
Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #200: ``spectacular comets''

BANDY@MIT-AI 06/01/82 08:26:21 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #200: ``spectacular comets''
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

Anybody remember comet Kahutek (definitely a spelling error) back in
'74 (I think). They said it was going to be a really big one, and I consider
myself lucky that I saw it (a friend happened to have a pair of binoculars).
Perhaps Halley's (this time around) will fizzle out too.
                                        - Andrew
                                    - andrew.univax at brl-bmd

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 82 7:21:03-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: mhtsa!ihnss!houxi!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Military in Space
Article-I.D.: alice.605
Via:  news.usenet; 1 Jun 82 7:40-PDT

NASA and the Pentagon are working on plans for each to operate
its own space shuttles.  At present, four are planned (one
completed, one very near to completion, one being constructed,
and one's parts being scrounged) with an option for a fifth
existing.  Congress has said that the Pentagon and DoD are
not paying their fair share in the development of the shuttle.
In the $15 billion projected cost of producing the four space
shuttles, the Pentagon will only pay $3.4 billion; this money
will also go to making a space station at Vandenburg AFB and
securing the facilities at KSC and Houston.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1982 2104-PDT
Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL
Subject: Military & Space, DOD 82-1, etc.
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow
Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL
To: Space at MC, Arms-d at MC
Message-ID: <[SRI-CSL] 1-Jun-82 21:04:13.GEOFF>

	
PM-Military and Space, Adv 01, 2 Takes,880-1550
U.S. Air Force Moves into Manned Space Program
For Release Tues PMs June 1
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - In the 25th year of the space age, man and his
military machines are moving to control the ultimate high ground far
above the Earth.
    The Soviet Union already has a toehold. The United States makes its
opening bid this month, when, for the first time, American astronauts
will conduct military assignments in space.
    The space shuttle Columbia will carry a Defense Department payload
to test sensors for future spy satellites - a modest beginning to a
multibillion-dollar project that could develop by the end of the
decade into a formidable space force of military pilots, ships,
satellites and exotic weapons.
    Not exactly ''Star Wars'' - but heading in that direction.
    The force is needed, defense officials claim, to counter a strong
Soviet manned military space effort aimed, they say, at dominating
that new arena. For their part, the Soviets blame the United States
for establishing the shuttle's military capabilities.
    The first defense-related shuttle flight is scheduled to lift off
from Cape Canaveral on June 27, with touchdown on Independence Day,
July 4, at Edwards Air Force Base in California.
    President Reagan is expected to greet the returning astronauts with
a speech outlining America's future in space. Reagan is said to be
considering establishment of a large permanent space station to be
used later in this decade for military, scientific and commercial
projects.
    The June flight, Columbia's fourth and final test mission, will see
fundamental changes in NASA's hitherto open information policy.
    The Air Force, which manages the Pentagon's space effort, has
declared the payload secret and won't disclose details to reporters.
It is listed simply as DOD 82-1.
    The astronauts, Navy Capt. Thomas Mattingly and Henry Hartsfield,
won't discuss the payload on open air-to-ground conversations, nor
will they transmit television pictures of it for fear the Soviets
might learn something.
    Nevertheless, many details about the package are known, from Air
Force congressional testimony and articles published in technical
papers.
    Robert Hermann, an assistant secretary of the Air Force, spilled the
beans on DOD 82-1 in testimony last year before the House
subcommittee on science and technology.
    ''We are planning to place a critical space test program called
CIRRIS on the fourth orbital flight test mission,'' Hermann said.
''This will provide critical information applicable to future defense
missions and will give both the Air Force and NASA an early
opportunity to evaluate the procedures and interfaces for operations
with the shuttle.''
    CIRRIS stands for Cryogenic Infra-Red Radiation Instrumentation for
Shuttle. It is to scan Earth's horizon with a super-cooled infrared
telescope to gather background and basic target data for future
spacecraft designed to detect and possibly destroy enemy missiles and
satellites.
    The payload will not be released into its own orbit, but will remain
in the shuttle cargo bay.
    From reliable sources it was learned other Pentagon instruments
aboard the flight include a Space Sextant, being developed to give
defense satellites an independent navigation capability, and a device
called HUP (horizon ultraviolet program), smaller than CIRRIS but
intended to do similar studies in the ultraviolet spectrum.
    NASA always has prided itself on the openness of its program, and
some officials are not happy with the security demands. But, Brian
Duff, the agency's chief of public affairs, said: ''We have no choice.
The decision has been made by the president that we are to share the
shuttle with the Air Force.''
    Brig. Gen. Richard Abel, Air Force director of public affairs, said:
''It is imperative, as we move DOD space systems to the shuttle from
expendable launch vehicles, that we protect information about those
systems which would be useful to a potential adversary.''
    Some observers believe CIRRIS is not all that secret and that the
Air Force's real goal is to test its own and NASA's security systems
to find where they might leak during truly top secret missions.
    The first all-up military ''blue shuttle'' flight is scheduled for
the 10th launching, in November 1983, carrying a satellite to detect
aircraft from orbit.
    After that, the pace accelerates, with 24 of the next 60 flights,
extending into 1987, classified as national defense missions - to haul
up satellites and as testbeds for lasers and other weapons. The
General Accounting Office estimated recently that the Defense
Department will require 114 of the 234 shuttle flights expected to
take place through 1994.
    ''The Defense Department and the Air Force have solid plans for the
continued expansion of space capabilities and the exploitation of
space for military purposes,'' said Air Force Undersecretary Edward C.
Aldridge Jr. in recent congressional testimony.
    ''This is inevitable, due to the military and economic advantages of
space surveillance, communications and navigation,'' he said. ''We
need to pursue a vigorous research and development program to give us
future military options in space, such as an anti-satellite system to
deny access to those considered harmful to our interests and,
potentially, weapons in space for protection of satellites or defense
of our forces.''
    Officials of both NASA and the Air Force foresee the day, not too
many years away, when each agency will operate its own shuttle fleet.
Four shuttles are currently planned, with money in this year's budget
to maintain an option for a fifth vehicle.
    The trend toward space militarization is indicated by the number of
Air Force uniforms at NASA centers. Eight officers are assigned to
NASA headquarters in Washington; 60 to the Kennedy Space Center at
Cape Canaveral, Fla., and 66 plus 22 Air Force civilian employees at
the Johnson Space Center in Houston.
    Early military shuttle flights will be piloted by military officers
in NASA's astronaut corps, but the Air Force is training specialists
at its space division in Los Angeles to handle sensitive payloads.
    Adding impetus to the militarization effort is the continuing Soviet
activity and a recent GAO recommendation that the U.S. accelerate an
early feasibility demonstration in orbit of a space-based laser
weapon.
    The Soviets possess the only operational space weapons system - a
killer satellite capable of flying alongside another satellite and
blowing it up. The Air Force early next year is expected to test-fire
for the first time its own anti-satellite weapon - a device that
seeks out an orbiting target and smashes into it after being launched
from an F-15 jet fighter aircraft.
    The Soviet manned space program, very active in recent years, is
believed by American experts to be mostly military-oriented. The
Soviets have indicated they will have a 12-to-14-man permanent space
station in orbit by 1985, and the recently-launched Salyut 7 craft may
be the core of that outpost.
    ''The Soviets recognize the historical value of dominating the space
environment,'' said Sen. Harrison H. Schmitt, R-N.M., a former
astronaut who is chairman of the Senate space subcommittee. ''It's the
first ocean they really have a chance to dominate. They have the
right perspective - that the civilization that dominates the military
and non-military aspects of space is going to dominate the military
and non-military aspects of the Earth.''
    Schmitt said the United States ''has not fully realized the unique
aspects of space for keeping the peace. We have a superior base of
technology but an inferior base of will by which to use that
technology.''
    He urged formation of a space command within the Pentagon or Air
Force to set and implement space policy. Defense officials have said
they are working toward such a command and may have it in place by the
end of this year.
    Among other things, that command would direct development of a
space-based laser system for destroying hostile missiles and
spacecraft.
    The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, says that
directed-energy weapons may revolutionize military strategy, tactics
and doctrine. Its recent report centers on the concept of a
constellation of laser battle stations in space with the potential for
credible air and ballistic missile defense for the United States
''where no defense currently exists.''
    These unmanned laser stations would be carried aloft by the shuttle
fleet.
    Lt. Gen. Kelly Burke, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for
research, development and acquisition, said earlier this month that
the Soviet Union could have an operational space-based, high-energy
laser in orbit within five years for anti-satellite applications.
    Burke said it will be the end of the century before an effective
space-based laser weapon system could be deployed to destroy ballistic
missiles in flight.
    There has been some congessional criticism, led by Schmitt and Sen.
William Proxmire, D-Wis., that the Defense Department is not paying
its fair share for shuttle development.
    ''Clearly, the space shuttle has been developed largely at NASA
expense,'' Schmitt said. ''Yet, DOD will be a major user.''
    Of the $15 billion it will cost to build four flight shuttles and
their facilities, the Pentagon's share is $3.4 billion. That includes
constructing a second launching base at Vandenberg Air Force Base,
Calif., building secure facilities at Cape Canaveral and at Mission
Control Center in Houston and developing a rocket stage capable of
boosting all shuttle payloads - military, scientific, commercial - to
high orbits.
    
ap-ny-05-27 0945EDT
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #203    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 203

Today's Topics:
			    Simulated Problems
			    closed ecosystems
	      Re: SPACE Digest V2 #200: spectacular comets""
			      Halley fizzle?
			 Re: `spectacular comets'
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 82 7:18:01-EDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Simulated Problems
Article-I.D.: alice.609
Via:  news.usenet; 2 Jun 82 4:42-PDT

On Ken Mattingly's and Henry Hartsfield's first simulated flight
last weekend, there was a simulated problem.  The computers, in
accordance with a pre-set script of the mission that was not known
to the astronauts in advance, told them that there was a nitrogen
leak in the (simulated) cabin.  They dealt with it and brought it
under control with no problems, and NASA is calling the 'mission'
a complete success.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 82 22:51:39-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: closed ecosystems
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2116
Via:  news.usenet; 2 Jun 82 5:42-PDT

One of the objections raised to the space-colony concept has been the
total lack of understanding of how to run closed-cycle ecosystems.
Attempts at creating simple closed systems that are self-sufficient in
water and nutrients (not just oxygen) haven't been too successful so far.
A report in the May issue of JBIS indicates that this situation has now
changed.

Fifteen months ago, JPL ecologist Joe Hanson prepared a number of small
ecosystems consisting of one-liter flasks containing imitation seawater,
assorted algae, numerous microorganisms, and inch-long tropical shrimp.
The necks of the flasks were then fused shut, sealing the systems off
completely from the biosphere:  only light and heat get in or out.

The little ecosystems are doing quite well.  In a few the shrimp have
died, but in most they are thriving.  The algae are healthy even in
the flasks with no shrimp left, suggesting that microorganisms are
supplying carbon dioxide.  There are other differences between various
flasks;  for example, different algae species are dominant in different
flasks, although they all started with pretty much the same mix.  The
reasons for these differences are not well understood.

Hanson is now trying to figure out non-invasive ways of measuring what
is going on in the flasks.  If this problem can be solved, these
long-lived "microecosystems" may be a major breakthrough in the science
of ecology, permitting controlled and repeatable experiments on whole
ecosystems for the first time.

The thing I find most interesting about his technique is that the stable
ecosystems did not arise out of systematic planning, with a small number
of species and carefully-planned interactions and cycles.  I have long
thought that the way to get a space colony's ecosystem going is just
to transport a slice of Earth's biosphere and let it adjust to the new
environment by itself.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 82 22:22:00-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #200: spectacular comets""
Article-I.D.: watmath.2514
Via:  news.usenet; 2 Jun 82 5:43-PDT

	The spelling was Kohoutek, so you're reasonably close.
	Actually, the author of the original piece is distressingly correct:
Halley's comet may well turn out to be very disappointing in 1985/86.  It's
dying.
	To see how a comet can die, let's examine one.  A comet is
fundamentally just a ball of dust and gases trapped inside ice.  As the
comet approaches the sun, some of the ice melts away, releasing some of the
trapped gas and dust.  Light pressure and the solar wind push the gas and
dust away from the sun, creating the comet's "tail" (not really a tail as
it always points away from the sun - a consequence of how it's made.  Thus,
it leads the head of the comet back into cometary belt space).  Note that
very little of the now-released dust and gas refreeze to the comet head: said
dust and gas will not be on the same orbit.
	So a comet loses mass each orbit, the lost mass travelling in a similar
orbit as a shower of micro-meteorites.  Eventually, this is all that will reamin
of the comet.  In 2062, it may be all that remains of Halley's.

------------------------------

Date:  2 Jun 1982 0933-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Halley fizzle?
To: andrew.univax at BRL-BMD, space at MIT-MC

It should be pointed out that Halley's comet will not be very visible
from the northern hemisphere this time.  If you really want to see it
you should take a vacation down under.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 1982 09:40 PDT
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: `spectacular comets'
In-reply-to: Andrew's message of 06/01/82 08:26:21
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

The chemical content of any given comet determines how it forms a head and
tail at various temperatures (and therefore at various distances from the sun).  So
the first time a comet is observed, we are taking a wild stab when we predict its
behavior.  Kahoutek was a first timer.  Halley's is not; it was recorded as having
been seen at most of its appearances for 2000 years.  There is little doubt that
Halley's will look spectacular under the proper viewing conditions.  That does
not include any metropolitan areas where you cannot see even one tenth of the
stars because of lights and polution.  It also does not, for this particular passage,
include northerly latitudes where the geometry of earth/sun/comet will keep
much of the spectacular time in local twilight or daylight.  Go south and away
from the cities, and excepting only for cloudy weather, you can be guaranteed a
spectacular comet.  

/Don Lynn

PS - Scientifically, Kahoutek was spectacular, because it was discovered early
and so allowed a long period of data gathering, even though it did not end up
nearly as bright as predicted.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #204    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 204

Today's Topics:
			    closed ecosystems
		       The Shuttle and the Military
			      NASA Contract
			       Tanking Test
			  Tanking Test a Success
		 New UK Satellite and Comet-Sun collision
			  disappointing Halley?
		   Re: Military & Space, DOD 82-1, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 June 1982 07:48-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: closed ecosystems
To: decvax!utzoo!henry at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

After the reported round-1 closed-ecosystem experiment,
I suggest the following plan:

Divide each of the round-1 successful systems in half, resealing one
and conducting a detailed analysis on the other. The main thing to
find out is whether any materials toxic to human life are abundant in
the successful closed ecosystems. Throw out those which are toxic.

For round-2, attempt to construct a large ecosystem containing exactly
what was determined to be in each of the non-toxic successful
ecosystems. Of course some tiny but necessary lifeform will be
omitted, but if the first round-2 experiment with pure materials fails
we can try again with a small amount of natural crud thrown in (i.e.
throw in a small amount of what started the original experiment). With
the system dominated by the analyzed result of the round-1 experment,
but with crud thrown in to supply a seed crop of anything else needed,
I expect each round-2 experiment will stabilize to exactly what the
corresponding round-1 experiment did, rather than jumping to some
other stable mix. This should be verifiable by comparing analysis of
the round-2 results with the correspond round-1 analyses.

Next, I guess we need to perform perturbation tests on the successful
round-2 mixtures. See if we can add a foreign substance and have the
mixture return to its original state after a while. We may find there
are a finite number of stable mixtures, that adding foreign substances
either returns to the same mixture or jumps to another, and we may
find a recipe for jumping a mixture from any existing state to any
desired state.

Hopefully there's at least one stable mixture that has a high ambient
level of oxygen (sufficient for human breathing) and is stable against
moderate amounts of oxygen-removal algae-removal and
human-waste-return. If so, we've solved the space-station problem.

I hope they have funding for additional research!

------------------------------

Date:    3-Jun-82 9:54AM-EDT (Thu)
From:    David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: The Shuttle and the Military
To:      Space at MIT-MC


It  would  seem  to  me  that  any  space  launch  vehicle  is extremely
vulnerable to anybody who doesn't like it.  The  only  thing  that  kept
all the  Mercury,  Gemini, and  Apollo  missions  from being attacked is
that they were not legal military targets, and had  they  been  attacked
the attacker  would  have  been  looked  upon with extreme disfavor from
all of the remaining international  community.   Now  that  the  Shuttle
is being  used  for  military  missions, it is giving up that protection
...and it could therefore become vulnerable to  attack.   One  does  not
need a  cruise  missile  or  killer  satellite to destroy the shuttle, a
person with a high power rifle can do an adequate job.

If the DoD is going to endanger the space program  in  this  way,  I  am
curious what  steps  they  are  taking to add new protection; is it soon
going to be illegal to park outside the Cape and watch a launch?
                                           --Dave
                                           (miller@yale)
-------

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 82 7:22:20-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!wheps!eagle!mhuxt!cbosg!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: NASA Contract
Article-I.D.: alice.612
Via:  news.usenet; 3 Jun 82 11:05-PDT

NASA yesterday announced that it had awarded a contract to
Perkin-Elmer Optical Group of Danbury, Conn., for the solar
optical satellite to be carried into orbit by the shuttle in
1985.  The contract would be worth $57 million by 1984.  NASA
won't make a final decision until all costs are examined.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 82 17:16:56-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Tanking Test
Article-I.D.: alice.610
Via:  news.usenet; 3 Jun 82 11:31-PDT

Workers began a tanking test of the space shuttle today at
0730 EDT, 15 minutes ahead of schedule.  In it, supercold
liquids hydrogen and oxygen are pumped into the shuttle's
external tank, which is then put through a stress test.
The tanking test then leads up to a mock ignition of the
main engines, after which the fuels are unloaded and restored.
Thomas (not ken, as I said before) Mattingly and Henry
Hartsfield will not take part in the test.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 82 19:43:40-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!cbosg!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Tanking Test a Success
Article-I.D.: alice.611
Via:  news.usenet; 3 Jun 82 11:31-PDT

Finishing 1.5 hours early, the tanking test of the space
shuttle today was termed a success, as teams of technicians
found nothing wrong with the tank or shuttle after the
fuels were loaded.  They are now being unloaded and restored
for the launch later this month.  Over the weekend, the DoD
satellite will be stowed aboard the shuttle, and next week
will see the loading of the maneuvering propellants into the
Reaction Control System.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 82 16:40:35-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Berkeley
Subject: New UK Satellite and Comet-Sun collision
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2117
Via:  news.usenet; 3 Jun 82 11:32-PDT

Two interesting pieces of information, garnered from the March 1982 issue
(Vol 24 #3) of <Spaceflight>, a journal published by the British
Interplanetary Society:

(1) p.124 : NEW UK SATELLITE ; This article describes a satellite to be
flown by Britain as part of a 3-nation cooperative mission scheduled for
Shuttle launch in 1984. The mission is called the Active Magnetic Particle
Tracer Explorers (AMPTE), and the other two nations involved are Germany
and the US.  The purpose of the mission is to measure magnetic and plasma
processes in the Earth's magnetosphere. In order to carry this out, the
German satellite will periodically release barium ions into space.

"One release of barium ions, planned near Christmas 1984, will create what
will appear from the ground for some 30 minutes as an artificial comet,
interacting with the solar wind in much the same way as a real comet. The
releases will be visible mainly from North and South America where a
suitable chain of ground observing stations and spotter planes can be made
available."

Depending on the amount of barium released and the level of magnetic
activity at the time, the resulting display could be quite spectacular
(especially if release occurs at night).  It could also give prospective
comet-watchers a sample of what's coming two years later, when Halley's
makes its rounds.

(2) p.125 : COMET-SUN COLLISION ; Speaking of comets...  Apparently, on 30
Aug, 1979, a sun-grazing comet actually hit the surface of the Sun,
scattering debris throughout the corona.  The event was detected by the
USAF P78-1 satellite, using a coronagraph which creates an artificial
eclipse of the sun by means of an occulting disc, which blocks out the
image of the solar disc while allowing the image of the corona to be
detected.  The energy released in the collision was estimated to have been
10**30 ergs; Naval Research Laboratory researchers are checking ground
based observatories (presumably their past records) for evidence of the
effect of the collision on the Sun.

Although the collision occurred more than 2 years ago, it was only
recently discovered, as "the relevant data has only now been released for
analysis".

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 82 17:25:49-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: disappointing Halley?
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2118
Via:  news.usenet; 3 Jun 82 11:33-PDT

Another reason why Halley's Comet is probably going to be disappointing
this time around is that Earth is poorly placed to view it.  Unlike the
last time, Earth will be fairly far away from the comet.  Moreover, the
way the orbits turn out, the Northern Hemisphere gets an especially poor
view.  There is already at least one "comet tour" being organized to go
down south for a better look.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 82 23:16:08-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Military & Space, DOD 82-1, etc.
Article-I.D.: watmath.2520
Via:  news.usenet; 3 Jun 82 11:35-PDT

	A very interesting article.  But it must come as a small reminder of
life's ironies to see that Sen. Harrison Schmitt(R-N.M.) agrees with Sen.
William Proxmire(D.-Wis, and hasn't he been defeated *yet*?) on this aspect
of space policy.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #205    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 205

Today's Topics:
			     military shuttle
			      Halley fizzle?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 1982 0913-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: redford at WAFER
Subject: military shuttle
Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11829130340.10.583.5019 at DEC-MARLBORO>

Keeping NASA independent of the military for 25 years has been a remarkable
accomplishment.  Does anybody out there know how it was done? Considering
that the bulk of rocketry research is military, and that NASA is perpetually
short of funds, it amazes me that NASA wasn't absorbed by the Air
Force long ago.  Now with all this talk about Space Command and the budget
hawks swooping in, NASA's future as a civilian outfit looks bleak.
    With regard to the security of the shuttle ("someone with a high-power
rifle could bring it down"), that's probably why they're building a
launch facility out at Vandenberg (sp?).  Some Cuban in a motor boat
could probably take out a launch at Cape Canaveral.
    On a another subject entirely, does anyone know what the "solar
optical satellite" that the UK, the US, and the Germans are putting up
is supposed to do?  Does it have anything to do with power generation,
or is it more for solar astronomy?

------------------------------

Date:      3 Jun 1982 08:29 (Thu)
From:     andrew.univax at BRL-BMD
To:       space.mit-ai at BRL
Via:      UUCP (Remote Mail);  4 Jun 1982 09:32-EDT (Fri)
Subject: Halley fizzle?

	>From dietz at usc-ecl Wed Jun  2 12:40:59 1982 remote from brl-bmd
	Sender:   Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
	Date:  2 Jun 1982 0933-PDT
	
	It should be pointed out that Halley's comet will not be very visible
	from the northern hemisphere this time.  If you really want to see it
	you should take a vacation down under.
	
But how visible will it be from down under? As visible as was
stated in space, or will it be brighter?
					- Andy
					- Bandy@mit-ai

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Jun-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #206    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 206

Today's Topics:
		       Vandenberg launch facilities
			   Upper Stage Booster
			     New Space Center
		     Re: The Shuttle and the Military
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  5 June 1982 1832-EDT (Saturday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  Vandenberg launch facilities
Message-Id: <05Jun82 183250 DS30@CMU-10A>

The Air Force has long used Vandenberg for launching into polar orbits.
Its advantage is that rockets can be launched straight south without
the danger of raining stuff down on land if something goes wrong.  From
Canaveral, your rocket will overfly land if shot straight north or
south.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 82 7:18:33-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Upper Stage Booster
Article-I.D.: alice.614
Via:  news.usenet; 5 Jun 82 22:36-PDT

Boeing Company unveiled yesterday the first of the Upper Inertial
Stage rockets to be launched from the space shuttle.  They pack
enough power to launch satellite from the cargo bay of the shuttle
into geosynchronous orbits and also to send scientific packages
to other planets.  The IUS can also be used as the second stage of
the Air Force's Titan booster.  IUS I will be used during next
January's launch of the Challenger.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 82 7:20:54-PDT (Sat)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: New Space Center
Article-I.D.: alice.616
Via:  news.usenet; 5 Jun 82 23:08-PDT

The Air Force yesterday announced that it had awarded a $69.3 million
contract to TRW Electronics and Defense Sector to ``design and develop
technical equipment'' for their new planned space center at Colorado
Springs.  The new center will control satellites in orbit and the
military aspects of the shuttle.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 82 22:13:29-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: The Shuttle and the Military
Article-I.D.: alice.613
Via:  news.usenet; 5 Jun 82 22:20-PDT

This is not going to stop a well-trained saboteur, but in regards
to security at KSC during a shuttle launch, I read several months
ago that, during the critical stage (I am not sure when that begins),
guards with rifles are ordered to ''shoot to kill'' any unauthorized
person within three miles of the pad.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #207    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 207

Today's Topics:
				DoD cargo
			     Lagrange points
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 82 16:16:08-PDT (Sun)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: DoD cargo
Article-I.D.: watmath.2544
Via:  news.usenet; 6 Jun 82 18:09-PDT

	I've read various speculations in these newsgroups (on one occasion
backed up by congressional testimony) that the DoD cargo on STS-IV isn't
in fact very spectacular and that DoD is just testing NASA's security.  I
wonder, though, whether or not that's true.  Is it just a coincidence that
the President's first major address on space policy is to take place at the
completion of this mission?  You'd think he'd've been guaranteed a larger
audience when STS-I landed.  Of course, I suppose President Reagan would
want a few missions to go smoothly before he committed the nation to a major
space effort in the eighties.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 1982 1956-EDT (Sunday)
From: "jnc%MIT-CSR" at MIT-Multics
Reply-to: JNC@MIT-XX
Subject: Lagrange points
To: space at mc
CC: jnc

	I am rereading an old favourite, "Fall of Mondust", and I find
references to things stuck in Lagrangian points of the Earth-Moon system.
Can anyone tell me who was the first person to come up with the idea
of sticking orbiting things there? This book is copyright 1961, but the
idea must predate that.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #208    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 208

Today's Topics:
			   Major address July 4
			   re: lagrange points
				DoD cargo
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 June 1982 19:56-EDT
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-MC>
Subject: Major address July 4
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-MC

	Speaking of said address, anyone have ANY idea what he is going
to say? They're being very quiet about it, but if they are going to
use up July 4 (national fervour, etc..) and tow three shuttles around
for a backdrop it must be something major. I can't image them doing that
for a 'Gee, isn't the shuttle neat' speech or anything like that. My
realistic estimate would be that he would announce a definite decision
to go with a permanent manned station, but I could easily see him
standing up and doing a massive PR job about how Apollo helped produce
one of the few major industries in the US that is healthy, how the
rest of the world is overtaking us in research, and how the nation is
suffering malaise froma lack of direction, and announcing some major
long range plan (a la Kennedy). Anyone know or want to comment?

------------------------------

Mail-From: PCO-MULTICS received by MIT-MULTICS at 07-Jun-1982 23:22:14-edt
Date:  7 June 1982 12:30 mst
From:  Jarrell.FSOEP at PCO-MULTICS
Subject:  re: lagrange points
To:  space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Message-ID:  <820607193058.049001 at PCO-MULTICS>

i'm not sure who it is who thought of putting things there, put the idea
is ancient. people have been talking about putting colonies up there for
years. it's a favorite topic with sf writers. most of them at one point
or another have had a colony called "l-5" or "l-4"  (l-5 being lagrange
point 5 , right between earth and moon, and l-4 being largrange 4, right
behind the moon.) it's a great idea. i'm going to apply as soon as they
build one. anyone else want to join?

-Ron

------------------------------

Date: 8 June 1982 03:26-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: DoD cargo
To: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think it's quite appropriate for Reagan to make a speech at tne
completion of the four-flight test program. After all, we've known for
10 years that we were going to build the shuttle, but only next month
will we know (at a confidence level of whatever four flights provides)
that the contraption really is going to work like we all hoped. The
first flight would have been a good time to speak, but the end of the
fourth flight is an excellent time too. Speaking at the second or
third flight would however have been non-canonical.

I hope he announces a goal of permanent manned presence in space (i.e.
a continuously-manned space station, like the USSR almost has already).
I hope he also announces research to prove the availability of
materials in space needed for largescale industry and habitat.
......... There, I've written a postcard to Reagan to that effect, and
will go mail it right after sending this message. (Every little bit
helps, one card equals 10k votes.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Jun-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #209    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 209

Today's Topics:
			   re: lagrange points
			     Lagrange Points
		      Loading of Propellants Begins
			       L4,L5 Points
			   re: lagrange points
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 1982 12:19:37-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: jarrell.FSOEP at PCO-MULTICS
Subject: re: lagrange points
Cc: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc

  Sorry...L4 and L5 are the trojan points (+/- 60 degrees in lunar orbit).
The ones you describe are in the set L1-L3, which are balanced but not
stable; this is why all the colonies are proposed for L5 or 4, leaving the
groundhogs wondering what happened to the first three.

------------------------------

Date:  8 Jun 1982 1129-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Lagrange Points
To: space at MIT-MC

I'm sure everyone else will jump on ron's error, but I might as well too.

The L5 point is not between the earth and the moon.  That's the L1 point (I
think).  L4 and L5 are in the moons orbit but 60 degrees ahead and behind
(I forget which is which).  

I thought that it was decided that the L5 point is not where you want a 
space colony; rather, there is a two week orbit that can be reached
from L2 (the point behind the moon) with a velocity change of as little
as 30 feet per second, making lunar materials very easy to move.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 82 20:03:30-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Loading of Propellants Begins
Article-I.D.: alice.627
Via:  news.usenet; 8 Jun 82 20:07-PDT

Nitrogen tetroxide and monomethyl hydrazine loading began today
without a hitch, NASA announced.  The toxic fuels, which react
with each other to provide maneuvering power for the shuttle in
flight, will be loaded into the Forward Reaction Control System
over the next four days.  With the commencement of the loading,
NASA today officially announced that 27 June will be the launch
date for STS-4.  Lift off is scheduled for 1100 EDT, with landing
to come a week later, on 4 July, at Rogers Dry Lake, Edwards Air
Force Base, California.  There, President Reagan is expected to
make a speech welcoming the astronauts home, and NASA hopes he
will give the go ahead for a manned space station.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 82 16:07:57-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!houxi!houca!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at Berkeley
Subject: L4,L5 Points
Article-I.D.: inuxc.139
Via:  news.usenet; 8 Jun 82 20:21-PDT

	Actually the L4 and L5 points are also unstable, however orbits
around the L4 and L5 points are stable.

------------------------------

Date: 9 June 1982 03:10-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: re: lagrange points
To: JARRELL.FSOEP@PCO-MULTICS at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

Sigh.  L-4 and l-5 are the STABLE (well dynamically stable)
points co-orbital with the secondary body; not the points in
line.  But if you were a member of thhe l-5 society you'd have
seen that from the little map on the inside of the magazine

Welcome aboard?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Jun-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #210    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 210

Today's Topics:
		      Beggs on Making Space Pay Off
		    Shuttle SRBs prepare to fly again
			    Enterprise status.
			  Russian space shuttle?
			  Re: Enterprise status.
			 Re: Major address July 4
			  Major Address July 4th
			      Lunar Eclipse
			     Lagrange Points
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 June 1982 06:35-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Note, the libration points are only points in the Earth-Moon frame of
reference. In the Earth-Sun or Earth-Stars etc. frames, they aren't
points, rather they're orbits around the Earth with a period of one
month, the same as the moon (one synodic month if you're in the
Earth-Sun system, or one siderial month if you're in the Earth-Stars
system, I think, but that's irrelevant to this general point I'm making).

In the Earth-Moon frame, L4 and L5 are points of minimal energy, i.e.
potential wells. Thus you can either sit at the bottom of the well
not moving (in that frame) or move in an orbit inside the well but
around the bottom rather than exactly at it. I believe this first
approximation assumes the orbit of the Moon around the Earth is circular
and no other bodies purturb the potential well. Does somebody on this
list have a more complete analysis that includes the non-circular motion
of the Moon around the Earth (actually around the center of gravity of
the Earth-Moon system) and purturbations from Sun, Venus, Mars, Jupiter etc.?

------------------------------

Date: 09 Jun 1982 1207-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Beggs on Making Space Pay Off
To:   space at MIT-MC  


James Beggs, NASA Administrator, has written a pretty good article in 
this week's (June 7) issue of EE Times.  He talks about the economic
and tecnological possibilities of using space and the Shuttle.

------------------------------

Date:  9 June 1982 1703-EDT (Wednesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  Shuttle SRBs prepare to fly again
Message-Id: <09Jun82 170345 DS30@CMU-10A>

(From FLIGHT International, 5 June 1982)

The parachutes which braked the fall of spent Solid Rocket Boosters
(SRBs) during the first Space Shuttle flight are to fly next on the
fifth mission, due in November.  SRB nosecones from the first flight
will fly again on mission six, and aft skirts on mission seven.  
Lastly, the SRB main casings will be reused on the eighth mission.

Nasa plans to use SRBs from the second and third Shuttle flights in
a similar pattern--parachutes from mission two on mission six,
and so on.  Each parachute system is intended to last ten flights,
and the rest of the SRBs will last for 20 flights.

At this early stage, many of the SRB elements are being refurbished
by the manufacturers.  But eventually United Space Boosters will do
most of the work at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida.  The motor
casings will be refilled with solid propellant by Thiokol.

------------------------------

Mail-From: PCO-MULTICS received by MIT-MULTICS at 09-Jun-1982 20:16:52-edt
Date:  9 June 1982 17:07 mst
From:  Jarrell.FSOEP at PCO-MULTICS
Subject:  Enterprise status.
To:  space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

As I understand it, there are currently 4 shuttles.
The Columbia, launching this month, the challenger, launching in January, the discovery, launching some time after they finish putting it together, and the Enterprise, which is being refitted
after being used as the atmospheric testing body. Does anyone
know what timeslot they prject for the enterprise flying?
before Discovery? How close is it to completion?

------------------------------

From: FONER@MIT-AI
Date: 06/09/82 22:12:43
Subject: Russian space shuttle?

FONER@MIT-AI 06/09/82 22:12:43 Re: Russian space shuttle?
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Earlier tonight I heard the tail end of an ABC News report on what
looks like a Soviet effort at a space shuttle.  Unfortunately, I
didn't manage to actually hear the story very well due to a lot of
interruptions.

Does anybody know what's going on here?  Does Russia actually have a
bird that is anything like a Shuttle?  If so, they've managed to keep
the thing under wraps pretty well until recently...  and have also
managed to score a propaganda victory by decrying our use of the
Shuttle for military missions while simultaneously building their own.

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

						<LNF>

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 82 22:35:57-EDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Enterprise status.
Article-I.D.: alice.632
Via:  news.usenet; 9 Jun 82 20:43-PDT

The Enterprise is the prototype shuttle.  It was used for drop
testing during the late 70's to test the shuttle's aerodynamic
performance as it falls like a rock towards landing.  I don't
know if they ever plan to actually launch it or not, but I don't
think so, since there are now so many references to a 'fifth
shuttle' which would include the four now planned (Columbia,
Challenger, Discovery, and Atlantis) and seemingly forget about
Enterprise.  The Challenger's roll out of its hangar is scheduled
for late this month, hopefully to coincide with the landing of
STS-4, now scheduled for 4 July.  The Discovery has just about
begun assembly and will be delivered in December, 1983.  Parts
for Atlantis are now being scrounged, and it will be delivered
in December, 1984.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 82 16:55:15-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Major address July 4
Article-I.D.: watmath.2557
Via:  news.usenet; 9 Jun 82 22:30-PDT

	My bet is that whatever his message is, space fans will have reason
to cheer.  He is NOT going to Edwards to shoot down the program, that's for
sure.
	I think JNC's probably right in that there'll be a major commitment.
The real question is, will it be civil or military?  I don't have any objection
to putting the military in space per se (not that anyone gives a damn what I
think), since in the face of Soviet military activities it seems incumbent on
the West to respond.  However, I do believe that excessive militarization of
space will choke civil development of this resource, principally because the
Pentagon will with some justification view LEO as a giant top-security military
installation, and I haven't noticed any factories at White Sands or Edwards.
	On the other hand, maybe he'll say that the only way to pay for this
vital national security asset is through space industry.  We can hope.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 82 17:24:59-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: Major Address July 4th
Article-I.D.: watmath.2559
Via:  news.usenet; 9 Jun 82 22:54-PDT

	My bet is that whatever his message is, space fans will have reason
to cheer.  He is NOT going to Edwards to shoot down the program, that's for
sure.
	I think JNC's probably right in that there'll be a major commitment.
The real question is, will it be civil or military?  I don't have any objection
to putting the military in space per se, since in the face of Soviet military
activities it seems incumbent on the West to respond.  However, it seems clear
that excessive militarization of space will choke civil development of this 
resource, principally because the Pentagon will, with some justification, view 
LEO as a giant top-security military installation. That wouldn't bode well for
space industries; I haven't noticed any factories at White Sands or Edwards.
	On the other hand, maybe the President will say that the only way to
pay for a military buidup in space (if that's what he's announcing) is through
space industry.  We can hope.

						Rick McGeer

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 82 9:50:13-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at
       Berkeley
Subject: Lunar Eclipse
Article-I.D.: inuxc.145
Via:  news.usenet; 9 Jun 82 23:00-PDT


	July's Lunar Eclipse

	The evening of July 5-6.

	ECLIPSE TIMES            EST(local Indianapolis time)

	First penumbral          11:22 pm
	First umbral             12:33 am
	Totality begins           1:38 am
	Mid-eclipse               2:31 am
	Totality ends             3:24 am
	Last umbral               4:29 am
	Last penumbral            5:40 am

	Jog before work           6:00 am
	Start work                7:45 am

This will be the longest lunar eclipse than any since 1906. The moon
will pass very near the center of the Earths shadow. The Moon might
in fact become invisible at mid-totality but it is hard to predict
how dim it will become.

------------------------------

Date: 10 June 1982 02:48-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Lagrange Points
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Since the founding of the L-5 Society it has long been
recognized that L4 and L5 are probably not the optimum points
for locating a colony; certainly not for the first one.   (I
should say May Not Be optimum.)  But surely we shouldn't have to
change the name of the outfit every year or two, so we stick
with L-5.

L-5 trails; L-4 leads.  In the TROJAN POINTS which is the
Sun-Jupiter-Trojan asteroids system, the Greeks lead and Trojans
trail: that is, the L-4 points were all named for Greek heroes
of the Iliad, the L-5 points named for the Trojans.  Alas, the
convention wasn't established before two asteroids were named
wrongly: there's a Greek spy  in the Trojan camp adn vice versa.
	When we get out there we'll hjave enough energy to swap
them back./..

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #211    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 211

Today's Topics:
			      Soviet Shuttle
			     Russian Shuttle
			  Russian space shuttle
		      Second Phase of Loading Begins
	    Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 82 7:24:36-EDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Soviet Shuttle
Article-I.D.: alice.633
Via:  news.usenet; 10 Jun 82 6:23-PDT

The USSR launched and recovered its first test of its first
space shuttle, US officials say.  They do not know whether or
not the vehicle was manned.  It went up last week and came
down after one orbit, about 90 minutes.  The Soviets are
expected to have an operational shuttle system by the 1990's.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 82 10:50:42-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!ihnss!inuxc!fred at Berkeley
Subject: Russian Shuttle
Article-I.D.: inuxc.148
Via:  news.usenet; 10 Jun 82 10:52-PDT

	In reguards to the ABC report about the Russian Space
Shuttle, it has long been known that the Russians have been
working on their own version of a space shuttle.  Apparently
they have just performed an unmanned test flight and they recovered
their craft insight of some long range Australian  recon jets.
The recovery was in the ocean??, which I don't understand. Their 
shuttle is smaller than ours which is suppose to allow it to
land and almost any large airport, a definite advantage in time of
war. That is about all I know about it.

		Fred Mendenhall 
		BTL- Indianapolis

------------------------------

Date: 10 June 1982 1419-EDT (Thursday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  Russian space shuttle
Message-Id: <10Jun82 141915 DS30@CMU-10A>

I think it was in 1979 that Aviation Week ran a drawing of a Russian
space shuttle that was said to be undergoing drop tests from a
bomber.  The vehicle is a lot smaller than our shuttle, and is
meant as a personnel shuttle, rather than for orbiting large loads.
It is to be launched by an expendable booster.  It is more in the
league of the Dyna-Soar and the European Hermes design.

Russian cries over military use of our shuttle are just crocodile
tears, even without their shuttle.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 82 17:27:23-EDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Second Phase of Loading Begins
Article-I.D.: alice.635
Via:  news.usenet; 10 Jun 82 14:51-PDT

Loading of nitrogen tetroxide finished at around 2200 EDT last
night, and today at 0300 EDT, workers began loading the monomethyl
hydrazine into the Forward Reaction Control System.  This loading
is expected to be completed tomorrow afternoon, after which the
pad will be closed while the tanks are pressurized.  The countdown
for STS-4 is scheduled to begin on 24 June with launch at 1100
EDT on 27 June.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 1982 1853-EDT
From: USCHOLD at RUTGERS
Subject: Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!!
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: uschold at RUTGERS

I attended a talk by James Doohan (Scottie) at SUNY Binghamton 5 or 6
years ago.  One of the questions he received from the audience was
about the name of the first shuttle.  He just chuckled and said "Yes,
the tremendous letter-writing campaign has indeed resulted in the
renaming of the first shuttle to the ENTERPRISE. It's too bad that
it's never going to make it to space."  A rather unfortunate irony.
Would've been nice if someone used their brain and make this publicly
known.  I'm sure all the TREKies would have been more than satisfied
to have the name "ENTERPRISE" attached to the first shuttle in
-space-, instead of the first -shuttle-.

I got a more detailed explanation about the ENTERPRISE when visiting
the Johnson Space Center last Thanksgiving.  It was indeed a prototype
shuttle, adequate for aerodynamic testing, but that's about all.  A
number of major design changes occurred during and shortly after it
was assembled.  It turned out that it would have been more expensive
to modify it to make it spaceworthy than to build a new one.  Also,
you get to have a display model...

Mike

P.S. NASA's original plan was to name the 1st shuttle COLUMBIA and the 1st
shuttle in space the ENTERPRISE.  The TREKkie campaign switched this
around..  SIGH...

Mike

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #212    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 212

Today's Topics:
		      Shuttle retrieving satellites
	    Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!!
			    USSR Space Shuttle
		      First shuttle's original name
	  Re: Why the ENTERPRISE won"t fly, Thank the TREKies!!
		 Re: Annendum to last msg  Re: ENTERPRISE
				news.jokes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 1982 0816-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: Shuttle retrieving satellites
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]11-Jun-82 08:16:23.WMARTIN>

I have seen references to the method of using the Shuttle to
launch satellites into higher orbits than it itself achieves, by
carrying up a relatively small booster which is used to move the
satllite up to the desired orbit.

But how is the Shuttle going to RETRIEVE satellites for repair or
refurbishment or whatever from those higher orbits?  Does it go
up with less payload and go directly to the higher orbit, or
carry a small craft which goes to get that satellite and bring it
down to the Shuttle level?  If the latter, is this manned or
robotic?

How is the repair/retrieval going to fit into the mission
schedule?  Do they plan on using satellite-launching missions to
bring back old satellites in the then-empty payload bay?  Are
repair-in-space activities to be carried out when needed via EVA
on otherwise-scheduled missions on a time-available basis, or are
they going to be put off until some future mission with available
time unassigned as yet?

I would assume military satellite maintenance would have
priority; how are commercial satellite repair missions charged
for?  (Time and materials, with some overhead costs or the like
to cover Shuttle launch and use costs, flat rates, or what?)  Can
a commercial organization like one of the global carriers buy
quicker service for some higher costs on a malfunctioning commo
satellite, or will there be no provisions for private parties
buying priority service?

Who is going to actually perform the repairs?  Will the
organization involved send up its own astronaut-trained
technician(s) to fix its own satellites, or do they train a NASA
astronaut to be a satellite repairman?  (Hmmm...  AAABCO
Satellite and TV Repair: "We Go Anywhere!"...)

Thinking about this just leads me to more and more questions...

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 11 June 1982 12:03-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!!
To: USCHOLD at RUTGERS
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I'm not sad that we don't have a flying shuttle named "Enterprise".
After all, the USS Enterprise was a starship, not a shuttle.
If any name from Startrek should be used for a shuttle, it should be
"Galileo", not "Enterprise". Unfortunately that name is going to be
used for something else. Maybe we'll name our first space station
"Tribble" or something else related (did the space station on Startrek
have a name?), and our first interstellar craft "Enterprise"?

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 10 June 1982  21:52-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: King at KESTREL
Subject: USSR Space Shuttle

	If the Russians have flight-tested their shuttle to orbit, why
is it reasonable to expect it to take them eight years to have it
operational?

				Dick

------------------------------

Date: 11 June 1982 1349-EDT (Friday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  First shuttle's original name
Message-Id: <11Jun82 134944 DS30@CMU-10A>

The prototype shuttle was originally named the CONSTITUTION, not
the Columbia.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 82 17:28:37-EDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Why the ENTERPRISE won"t fly, Thank the TREKies!!
Article-I.D.: alice.641
Via:  news.usenet; 11 Jun 82 16:26-PDT

The space station seen in the episode ''The Trouble with Tribbles''
(originally to be named ''More Tribbles, More Troubles'') was named
''K-7''

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 82 15:14:34-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Annendum to last msg  Re: ENTERPRISE
Article-I.D.: watmath.2588
Via:  news.usenet; 11 Jun 82 21:05-PDT

Actually, as I remember it, the original name for the test shuttle wasn't to
have been Columbia; it was to have been named Consitution.
I don't know if there had been any plans to name an orbiter Enterprise.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 82 22:44:49-PDT (Sun)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!hpda!fc at Berkeley
Subject: news.jokes
Article-I.D.: hpda.165
Via:  news.usenet; 12 Jun 82 0:22-PDT

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #213    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 213

Today's Topics:
			     Enterprise' Fate
	Startrek space-station (trouble with tribbles) named "K-7"
			   RE: "loading begins"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 82 11:50:04-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Berkeley
Subject: Enterprise' Fate
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2158
Via:  news.usenet; 12 Jun 82 3:03-PDT


   I'd heard that the Enterprise was to be presented
to the Smithsonian Institute's Air and Space Museum
for display, rather than being cannibalized for
parts. Of course, the Smithsonian doesn't need an
operational machine for display purposes; perhaps only
the shell will be presented.

				Kieran A. Carroll

------------------------------

Date: 12 June 1982 18:44-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Startrek space-station (trouble with tribbles) named "K-7"
To: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Hmm, maybe we could name our first space station "canine" (pun).

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1982 at 1805-CDT
From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 
Subject: RE: "loading begins"
To: space at mit-mc


  When are the propellants for the Aft RCS systems and the OMS
system to be loaded?

		KJM
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #214    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 214

Today's Topics:
	  Re: Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!!
	    Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!!
	    Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!!
			  Re: Enterprise status.
			  Major Address July 4th
			  Major Address July 4th
			  Re: Enterprise status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mail-From: PCO-MULTICS received by MIT-MULTICS at 13-Jun-1982 18:03:15-edt
Date:  13 June 1982 14:56 mst
From:  Lippard at PCO-MULTICS (James J. Lippard)
Subject:  Re: Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!!
Sender:  Lippard.Scouting at PCO-MULTICS
To:  space at MIT-MC

Just a correction: the Star Trek episode "The Trouble with Tribbles"
was NOT originally to be named "More Tribbles, More Troubles".
The latter is the title of one of the Star Trek animated episodes.

------------------------------

Date: 14 June 1982 03:19-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!!
To: USCHOLD at RUTGERS
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The campaign to rename the Enterprise was largely headed by Mrs.
Trimble, who I think did not know that the first ship was not to
go to space.  However, as a result of the renaming effort, the
USAF orchestra played the Star Trek theme as Enterprise was
rolled out of the hanger (at the rollout ceremony), and several
of the  show cast were there on the platform.
	Incidentally, although Congressman Barry Goldwater Jr
and his father were both at the Shuttle Rollout, Governor Brown
(who was then still hot on his "lesss is better and you have to
get used to poverty real quick" kick) was not only not there,
but sent neither a deputy nor a well-wishing message.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 82 0:20:22-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!POURNE at MIT-MC at UCB
Subject: Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!!
Article-I.D.: sri-unix.1744
Via:  news.usenet; 14 Jun 82 0:20-PDT

From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
The campaign to rename the Enterprise was largely headed by Mrs.
Trimble, who I think did not know that the first ship was not to
go to space.  However, as a result of the renaming effort, the
USAF orchestra played the Star Trek theme as Enterprise was
rolled out of the hanger (at the rollout ceremony), and several
of the  show cast were there on the platform.
	Incidentally, although Congressman Barry Goldwater Jr
and his father were both at the Shuttle Rollout, Governor Brown
(who was then still hot on his "lesss is better and you have to
get used to poverty real quick" kick) was not only not there,
but sent neither a deputy nor a well-wishing message.

------------------------------

Date: 14 June 1982 03:58-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Enterprise status.
To: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	According to Rockwell engineering people, it would cost
less to build a new shuttle from scratch than to retrofit the
Enterprise and make her spaceworthy.
	Pity...

------------------------------

Date: 14 June 1982 04:00-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Major Address July 4th
To: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	We can all hope, and there may be reason to be hopeful.
I remind you all that one way to kill something is to leak it.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 82 1:01:49-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!POURNE at MIT-MC at UCB
Subject: Major Address July 4th
Article-I.D.: sri-unix.1746
Via:  news.usenet; 14 Jun 82 1:02-PDT

From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
	We can all hope, and there may be reason to be hopeful.
I remind you all that one way to kill something is to leak it.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 82 0:59:21-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!POURNE at MIT-MC at UCB
Subject: Re: Enterprise status.
Article-I.D.: sri-unix.1745
Via:  news.usenet; 14 Jun 82 0:59-PDT

From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
	According to Rockwell engineering people, it would cost
less to build a new shuttle from scratch than to retrofit the
Enterprise and make her spaceworthy.
	Pity...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #215    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 215

Today's Topics:
		      shuttle names and the drekies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 1982 1135-MDT
From: Pendleton at UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: shuttle names and the drekies.
To: space at MIT-MC

    If I remember correctly, the StarFleet Technical Manual lists the
starship Enterprise as a Constitution class battle cruiser.
The Constitution, being the first ship of that type built, is the class ship.
NASA, according to a faintly remembered rumor, wanted to name the first
shuttle "Constitution" and a later shuttle "Enterprise" so that the space
shuttle Enterprise would be a Constitution class space shuttle in the
same way the starship Enterprise is a Constitution class starship.
This would have been a very nice parallel, but the drekies, not knowing
or caring about the pseudo history of their favorite starship, fouled it up.
This leaves us with an Enterprise class space shuttle, the Columbia, as our
first operational space shuttle.

This class naming convention follows the nautical tradition, which is quite
different from the naming schemes used for aircraft and previous US spacecraft.

   Hoping My Memory Is Correct

        Bob Pendleton

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #216    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 216

Today's Topics:
			    Re: The Dyna-Soar
			Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
		      Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
				 Trojans
		      shuttle names and the drekies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 82 18:52:46-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: ucbvax!ARPAVAX.CAD.teklabs!tekid!jm at UCB
Subject: Re: The Dyna-Soar
Article-I.D.: tekid.69
Via:  news.usenet; 15 Jun 82 18:52-PDT

For a more detailed view of the Dyna-Soar project and the early
space program in general, I HEARTILY recommend Tom Wolfe's book
'The Right Stuff'.  Although Toyota (gag) has perverted this
phrase for commercial purposes, that should not be taken as an 
indication of the content of the book.  It is facinating reading
and makes you wonder if you could cut it as a fighter-jock too
(if only I didn't wear glasses...*SIGH*).

jeff mizener  (...!teklabs!tekid!jm)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 82 7:24:24-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: ucbvax!decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at UCB
Subject: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
Article-I.D.: alice.657
Via:  news.usenet; 15 Jun 82 19:08-PDT

The landing of the Columbia on 4 July has been pushed from
0738 EDT to 0913 EDT in the hopes that there will be more
crosswinds then.  No delay so far has been encountered in
the launch preparations, and things are on schedule or
ahead of schedule in some cases.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 82 8:21:57-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: ucbvax!decvax!harpo!ihnss!ihuxl!larry at UCB
Also-From: ucbvax!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!allegra!honey at UCB
Subject: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours

The local news said that the "official" reason for landing one orbit later
was listed as weather related, but (someone they named, but I forgot) had
speculated that it was really to let Ronnie R. sleep an extra hour!
==Sleep tight lil' Ronnie!!
		Larry Marek

I understood the extra orbit was to give a certain cowboy his beauty rest.
		Peter Honeyman

------------------------------

Date: 16 June 1982 04:06-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Trojans
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

	A couple of people asked about the Trojan Asteroids.

The leading (l-4 point) Greeks:
Achilles, Hector (the Trojan spy), Nestor, Agamemnon, Odysseus,
Ajax, Diomedes.

The trailing (l-5 ) group:
	Patroclus (the Greek spy), Priamus, Anaeas, Anchises,
Troilus

They do tend to wander a bit, and some are highly inclined
(Troilus is 33.7 degrees), but they're all pretty well
co-orbital with Jupiter (inclined 1.33).  Eccentricities
(relative to Sun) vary from .024 to .148; for comparison,
Jupiter eccentricity is .048

------------------------------

Date: 16 June 1982 04:12-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: shuttle names and the drekies.
To: Pendleton at UTAH-20
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

What matter if your memory is correct, since you are obviously
so superior to any group you call "drekies"?  Even if you were
wrong they couldn't possibly be right, could they?  They're
probably not even human.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Jun-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #217    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 217

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
			     More crosswinds 
		      Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 82 22:02:38-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
Article-I.D.: watmath.2687
Via:  news.usenet; 16 Jun 82 3:09-PDT

	In the hopes that there will be *more* crosswinds?  I don't doubt
alice!sjb, but why in Heaven would heavier crosswinds be more conducive to
a landing - I would have thought the reverse would be true.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 1982 0557-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: More crosswinds 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The first four flights are TEST flights,  to check the handling in reality
against the models.  Experience with landing in a strong crosswind is
necessary to decide if the shuttle really can be kept on the straight
and narrow under such conditions, as the design says it should.  A
deflection is tolerable on the vast expanse of the Edwards lakebed, but
would be a potential disaster when landing on the narrow runway at Cape
Canaveral.  If it doesn't handle right, they'd better find out now.
There was supposed to be a crosswinds landing in the last flight, but
the weather got a little TOO wild.

------------------------------

Date: 17 June 1982 02:19-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
To: ucbvax!decvax!harpo!ihnss!ihuxl!larry at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	Suppose that the purpose of the dealy is INDEED to allow
the President of the United States to arise at a more congenial
hour.  Is there some crime to that?  Have not all of us hoped,
wished, prayed that the President would come to a Shuttle
landing?  Hell, I wanted Governor Brown to come to the Shuttle
Rollout, but he didn't, even though that was scheduled for the
convenience of the VIP's.

	I fear I do not understand why there is some kind of
resentment over making what nearly everyone agrees is the
world's most difficult and demanding job a bit easier.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #218    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 218

Today's Topics:
		 Final Countdown Preparations on Schedule
		      Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 82 7:57:04-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Final Countdown Preparations on Schedule
Article-I.D.: alice.666
Via:  news.usenet; 17 Jun 82 14:17-PDT

Final preparations for the countdown of STS-4 are right on
schedule, and no problems have yet been encountered.  Yesterday,
space suits, to be used in emergencies only, were loaded aboard
the orbiter, and heat protective shields were installed on
the SRB nozzles.  Later in the week, the Columbia's computers
will be loaded with their flight software.

In other news, NASA announced that the price of renting the
shuttle will triple in 1985, from $30 million to $90 million,
due to ridiculously low initial costs and soaring inflation.
However, since the shuttle can carry four satellites at once,
compared to one and two by America's Delta and ESA's Ariane,
companies can split the cost evenly and come out spending less
money than on the one-shot boosters.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 82 7:59:48-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
Article-I.D.: alice.667
Via:  news.usenet; 17 Jun 82 14:23-PDT

The reason for hoping for heavier crosswinds is that NASA still
have not tested the landing performance of the shuttle in crosswinds,
which prevail at the strip at KSC.  Due to this, they have pushed
the first landing at KSC from next November to April of next year
in order to gain enough data from the strip at Edwards, where it
is much safer to land, since you have a wider margin on error.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Jun-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #219    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 219

Today's Topics:
			  Shuttle landing time?
		   Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle
		      Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
			Re: Shuttle landing time?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 82 21:18:10-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle landing time?
Article-I.D.: gsp86.122
Via:  news.usenet; 18 Jun 82 3:32-PDT

	Has the official landing time for the shuttle been set yet?
Forgive me if I missed it, we have not been receiving news for a
couple weeks.
						murray at intelqa

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 82 21:09:06-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray at Berkeley
Subject: Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle
Article-I.D.: gsp86.120
Via:  news.usenet; 18 Jun 82 3:33-PDT

	In regards to russian computers and ease of aquisition from the U.S.,
that really is not the true issue. The design of the five major computers
in the shuttle predate the 68000, the 8086, and probably the 8085.
Processing power is not really that big a dal in this situation, An
8080 or two would propaply be more than enough power for the syncronization
demands of the shuttle. The problem is reliability! Both the hardware
and the software must be reliable to the nth degree when you are staking
mens lives and more importantly (I'm sorry to say) national prestige on
whether or not your shuttle comes down intact. Based on the propaganda I've
heard, the Russians simply do not have the programming expertise to
write that kind of program. No matter who manufactures the hardware, that
hurdle has to be covered first. Shucks, I have my doubts that the people 
in this country have that kind of skill.... look what happened on the
attempted first launch of the Columbia.
	Also, those five main computers are not the only computers in

those shuttles. I am led to believe that there are many (100s?) of micro
processors onboard. (I admit the numbers I have heard are based only
on conjecture and heresay). Stealing a couple thousand 8080's (or 68000's)
for all the ancillary functions would probably not be easy, even for 
the Soviet Union (although I think it would be entirely 'do-able').

	One last point and I will stop flaming, if you were a high
Russian mucky-muck, and the only place you could get high technology
computer parts for your space flagship was those capitalistic self-
centered, western dogs who (whom?) you have been taught since child-
hood to despise and distrust, would steal the parts?

	In summation, I do not believe the russians have a shuttle
comparable to ours, but not for the reasons outlined in the article
for which I am posting this followup.

					murray at intelqa

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 82 20:08:57-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
Article-I.D.: gsp86.125
Via:  news.usenet; 19 Jun 82 0:35-PDT

	The article stating that the landing at KSC will occur 5 months
later than originally planned, and other sources I have heard both
suggest that there will be another landing at Edwards. Can anyone
conirm or deny this (please state your sources)?
						murray at intelqa

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 82 20:03:22-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Shuttle landing time?
Article-I.D.: alice.678
Via:  news.usenet; 19 Jun 82 1:51-PDT

References: gsp86.122

Landing is scheduled for 4 July at either 0913 or 0928 EDT
(I forget which)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #220    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 220

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Shuttle Delay and Pres.
				July Skies
		   Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle
		   Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 82 9:26:54-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred
       at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Shuttle Delay and Pres.
Article-I.D.: inuxc.157
Via:  news.usenet; 19 Jun 82 2:47-PDT




	I think there is no question that we would all like to see the
President of the United States come to a Shuttle Launch or Shuttle Landing
in a supportive position. However, past experiences have indicated that
a Presidential "presents" usually results in a lot of cheap words, that
are politically expedient while the space program is being raped generally
by Presidential policies.
	With such a feeling I find it easy to understand a certain amount
of resentment at having the landing rescheduled just for the benefit of the
President.
	However, your point is well taken, a positive impression made on
the President might do much to help our cause, and if that means letting
him get a good nights rest I'm all for it.

			Fred Mendenhall BTL Indianapolis
			inuxc!fred

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 82 12:40:29-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at
       Berkeley
Subject: July Skies
Article-I.D.: inuxc.159
Via:  news.usenet; 19 Jun 82 2:52-PDT


                     Main Events in July Sky 1982


July 4    Venus near Aldebaran in Taurus,  pre-dawn sky
		Earth at Aphelion 94.5 million miles
		Moon at apogee 252,377 miles

July 5-6  Full Moon and Lunar Eclipse

July 13 Moon last quarter

July 19 Moon at perigee 222,549 miles

July 20 New Moon

July 21 Mars lies about 1/2 degree north of Spica in Virgo

July 26 Moon is near Mars between Jupiter and Saturn

July 27 Full Moon

July 29 Peak activity for the Delta Aquarids Meteor Shower

July 30 Peak activity for the Capricornid Meteor Shower

Enjoy the warm summer observing while it lasts! Remember Last 
November!

					Fred

------------------------------

Date: 19 June 1982 15:43-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle
To: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

More than the crew's lives or national prestege is at stake.
Ten years investment in building the shuttle!
Imagine what would happen to our space program if after 10 years work
designing and building the four orbiters each of them crashed within
the first year of testing! It would be years before we could fix the
fatal bugs and tool up for making a replacement fleet, and with
Stockman as budget director I doubt we'd even try.  Those
synchronization programs, and everything else, have to be damn
reliable!

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 82 13:50:11-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley
Subject: Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle
Article-I.D.: zehntel.337
Via:  news.usenet; 19 Jun 82 18:08-PDT

Steal, hell! all the Russians have to do is send someone down to the 
Radio Shack in Washington D.C. next to their embassy and buy the
darned 8080's!  Have you ever had to prove citizenship and fill out a 
form promising not to send your stuff outside the US at Computerland?
Come on!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #221    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 221

Today's Topics:
		     re: computers on russian shuttle
			    please let me know
		      Rocket Planes vs. Rocket Ships
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mail-From: PCO-MULTICS received by MIT-MULTICS at 21-Jun-1982 14:29:47-edt
Date:  21 June 1982 11:26 mst
From:  Jarrell.FSOEP at PCO-MULTICS
Subject:  re: computers on russian shuttle
Reply-To:  Jarrell.FSOEP%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS
To:  space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

 Well, you may not have to prove citizenship, but try getting it out of
the country. Recently the customs department confiscated a computer
chess game that a professor was trying to take with him to a european
computer chess tournament. They are cracking down on technology. Unless
they are planning on shipng it out in the diplomatic pouches, and i
don't know what kind of customs that has...

------------------------------

Date: 22 June 1982 01:24-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: please let me know
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: POURNELLE at MIT-MC

Since I am no longer on the SPACE mailing list, but remain
interested, please let me know if there are things I should know
of.

Jep

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 82 23:25:10-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!fortune!kiessig at Berkeley
Subject: Rocket Planes vs. Rocket Ships
Article-I.D.: fortune.69
Via:  news.usenet; 21 Jun 82 2:42-PDT

        Well, in a way you could say the "Rocket Planes" of the late
fifties and early sixties DID beat the "Rocket Ships" into space.  In
August 1960, (I think the Vostok I Sputnik was launched April 12, 1961) Bob
White went up in the X-15 and set a new altitude record of 136,500 feet
(slightly more than 25 miles).  The conditions had been almost precisely
those of space flight.  He took the ship up in a ballistic arc, like the
Mecury-Redstone was supposed to go on.  He experienced 5G's (astronauts
were to get 6G's).  He was weightless for two minutes as he came over the
arc (astronauts were to get five minutes).  The air is so thin at that
altitude, that there was no aerodynamic control.  He landed the plane back
at Edwards, on the dry lake. [There is a good account of this whole story
in "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe].

	This strikes me as being very close to a shuttle-like operation.
Certainly we must have learned things from these missions 22 years ago
that have helped perfect the Shuttle.

	If only we had gone on to the X-20 (the X-15 with the XLR-99
engine had 57,000 lbs. thrust, and finally made it to 354,200 ft.
[67 miles -- 17 miles into space] and 4,104 miles/hour [mach 5.92]).
The Mercury-Redstone had 78,000 lbs.  The Mercury-Atlas had 280,000 lbs.
The X-20 was to have 2,800,000 lbs. of thrust, and would have taken a
man into orbit, allowing him to land anywhere he wanted.  And this was
in 1963!!  Imagine where we could be now had we followed that line
of research.....

Rick

P.S. Does anyone out there know what happened to the prototype X-20
     that was being built by Boeing in 1963, before the project was
     cancelled?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #222    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 222

Today's Topics:
			      rocket planes
		       Re: Shuttle Delay and Pres.
		       Shuttle Ready for Countdown
		"The launch countdown is now in progress."
		       Microprocessors and so forth
		   Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle
		       Hans Bethe on Vulnerability
		      Rocket Planes vs. Rocket Ships
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 1982 1301-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: redford at WAFER
Subject: rocket planes
Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11833890492.15.583.3700 at DEC-MARLBORO>

The 4000 mph that the X-15 could do is a long way from the 18,000 mph
needed for earth orbit.  At that speed the X-20 would have faced the same 
problem that the shuttle has: how to protect the craft from the heat of 
re-entry.  The Boeing designers could have used Von Braun's solution, ablative
shields, but with expendable shields and expendable boosters the only
reusable part of the craft would be the cockpit.  The only advantage I can
see to that sort of design is being able to land it at different locations.
This was more useful for military programs than civilian ones, which is
probably why they ultimately decided not to bother.

------------------------------

Date: 23 June 1982 01:33-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Shuttle Delay and Pres.
To: decvax!duke!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

That's one of the reasons I sent a card to Reagan advising him on what
I'd like him to say at the speech. Now if he says a lot of bullshit,
and doesn't propose any programs such as spacestation or SEPS or
prospecting for Hydrogen&Carbon I can write him a followup card or
letter castigating him and have copies published in newspapers, and he
can't reply "why didn't you say what you wanted in the first place".

Not that my voice is so important, but each letter counts.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 82 18:02:24-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca.decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Ready for Countdown
Article-I.D.: alice.695
Via:  news.usenet; 22 Jun 82 22:31-PDT

The Columbia was readied for its countdown today, which, if
all went well, should have started about an hour ago.  The
countdown is 10 hours longer than previous shuttle countdowns,
due to the need for loading a telescope in the DoD's "secret"
package with liquid helium.

Thursday is scheduled for the joint Soviet-French space flight
to launch.  If all goes according to plan, this will be the
third time that U.S. and Russian astronauts have been in orbit
at the same time.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 82 19:44:59-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca.decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: "The launch countdown is now in progress."
Article-I.D.: alice.696
Via:  news.usenet; 22 Jun 82 22:46-PDT

That word from KSC tonight signaled the beginning of a 114 hour
countdown that, hopefully, will climax Sunday morning at 1100
EDT with the lift off of Columbia's fourth and last test flight.
The start came right on schedule, at 1700 EDT.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 82 19:07:45-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca.decvax!harpo!duke!bcw at Berkeley
Subject: Microprocessors and so forth
Article-I.D.: duke.2261
Via:  news.usenet; 22 Jun 82 22:44-PDT

The recent excitement about the microprocessors for the Russian
space shuttle (and for the "security leak" of the chess machine)
is much overblown.  It would not be at all difficult to smuggle
something like that out, as the following example should illustrate.

During the Vietnam war, the North Vietnamese directed their defense
of Hanoi with some *Americen-made* computers.  Now this was some
10 years ago and computer technology wasn't quite as compact as it
is today.  Not only that, but we were effectively *at war* with the
North Vietnamese and would have all the more incentive to stop the
flow of such things to Hanoi.

I understand they used IBM-1130's which as anyone who's seen one
knows are not exactly things you can hide in a suitcase like one
of the modern microcomputers (although its processing power was
probably a fraction of a 68000).  It's just not possible to stop
*all* of the flow of such things to countries considered less than
desirable;  the most that the authorities can do is to make it
harder and consequently *reduce* the flow.

			Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 82 13:50:11-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca.hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley
Subject: Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle
Article-I.D.: zehntel.337
Via:  news.usenet; 23 Jun 82 2:05-PDT

Steal, hell! all the Russians have to do is send someone down to the 
Radio Shack in Washington D.C. next to their embassy and buy the
darned 8080's!  Have you ever had to prove citizenship and fill out a 
form promising not to send your stuff outside the US at Computerland?
Come on!

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 82 23:14:10-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: G.asa at Berkeley
Subject: Hans Bethe on Vulnerability
Article-I.D.: populi.210
Via:  news.usenet; 23 Jun 82 2:33-PDT

THE INFERIORITY COMPLEX

Hans A. Bethe

[_T_h_e _f_o_l_l_o_w_i_n_g _i_s _P_r_o_f_e_s_s_o_r _B_e_t_h_e'_s _t_e_s_t_i_m_o_n_y _t_o _t_h_e _S_e_n_a_t_e _F_o_r_e_i_g_n
_R_e_l_a_t_i_o_n_s _C_o_m_m_i_t_t_e_e _o_n _M_a_y _1_3.]

I have been a Professor of Physics at Cornell University since 1935.
In 1967 I was awarded the Nobel Prize for studies of nuclear reactions
in the stars.  I was leader of the Theoretical Division of the Los
Alamos Scientific Laboratory from 1943 to 1945 when that laboratory
developed the first atomic bomb.  I have consulted for the Los Alamos
Laboratory at least once a year.  I was a member of the President's
Science Advisory Committee from 1957 to 1960, and remained a member of
its Strategic Military Panel until 1969 when the panel was dissolved.
In 1958 I participated in the Experts Conference in Geneva which
discussed the verification of a ban on nuclear weapons tests, and led
to the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963.  I am testifying on behalf of
the Union of Concerned Scientists of Cambridge, Massachusetts, but the
ideas expressed in my testimony are my own.

Several members of the government have stated repeatedly that we are
inferior to the Soviet Union in strategic weapons, and that we need to
build up our weapons.  In my opinion there is no such
inferiority. . . .
      We are told that there is a window of vulnerability because the
Russians might use their large ICBMs to destroy our land-based
ICBMs. . . .  I claim that such a first strike would give no
significant military advantage to the Russians.
      The reason is that ICBMs make up only one-fourth of our
strategic nuclear forces, as measured by the number of warheads.
One-half of our force is on invulnerable nuclear-powered submarines,
and another one-fourth is on bombers, many of which can take off from
their widely dispersed airfields in case of an alert.  We would
therefore have ample striking force left even if _a_l_l our ICBMs were
destroyed. . . .  [A] hypothetical first-strike against our ICBMs
would have practically no effect on our war-fighting ability.
Therefore the window of vulnerability does not exist. . . .
      The most important addition to our arsenal is the cruise
missile, which is being deployed on our B-52 bombers.  The cruise
missile can penetrate into the Soviet Union.  No defense system
against it exists.  The elaborate and costly Russian air defense
system has been made obsolete by the cruise missile, 3,000 of which
are to be installed on our bombers.  In short we have, and will
continue to have into the foreseeable future, two completely
independent and essentially invulnerable strategic forces.
      Because the cruise missile can penetrate the Soviet Union as no
bomber can, and because it has extreme accuracy, we do not need a new
bomber, the B-1, and even less its follow-up, the STEALTH.  Perhaps
the B-52 will eventually have to be replaced, but I cannot see why
this replacement should have elaborate electronic equipment to
penetrate into Russia, equipment which accounts for the enormous cost
of the B-1 and the STEALTH.  Penetration can be achieved much more
effectively and cheaply by the cruise missile.

The government has stated that we need parity in strategic forces in
every category.  If this means that we need parity also in ICBMs, I
disagree.  With the increasing accuracy of missiles, on both sides,
all land-based weapons will become vulnerable.  I cannot think of any
deployment on land that will be secure, and in my opinion the
deployment of MX is a futile expenditure of money.  We should maintain
the emphasis on submarine and bomber forces; this makes our forces
largely invulnerable, and thereby superior to those of the Soviets.
If anyone has a window of vulnerability, it is the Soviet Union.
      As I have said, several of our weapons programs are unnecessary:
the B-1, the STEALTH, and the MX.  But the submarine program deserves
our full support, especially the further improvement of secure
communication links to our submarines, as has been rightly emphasized
by this administration.  Also, if we wish to decrease our dependence
on nuclear weapons in Europe, a goal which I strongly support, our
conventional forces must be built-up, especially by exploiting our
available high-technology in anti-tank weapons.
      We are not inferior to the Russians in strategic armaments.  But
we, the Russians, and Western Europe are severely threatened by the
possibility that the enormous arsenal of nuclear weapons on both sides
may some day be used.  Our only hope lies in substantial reduction of
these armaments.  A good first step would be the ratification of the
SALT II agreement by the Senate.  The advantages of doing so have been
persuasively demonstrated by Senator Gary Hart in _T_h_e _N_e_w _Y_o_r_k _T_i_m_e_s
of May 2. . . .

Negotiations with the Russians are difficult and lengthy in any case.
The SALT II treaty took six years to negotiate.  We cannot wait that
long.  We must stop the arms race by measures which are not subject to
such long delay.  I find most attractive the proposal by George
Kennan, the famous expert on the Soviet Union, which has recently been
revived by Admiral Noel Gayler in _T_h_e _N_e_w _Y_o_r_k _T_i_m_e_s _M_a_g_a_z_i_n_e of April
25.  The plan calls for similar reductions by both superpowers, let's
assume by 5 percent of the existing force per year.  Each side would
choose the weapons it wants to retire, and compliance could easily be
verified by our satellites.  This plan is so simple that it might be
agreed on with very brief negotiation, like the Limited Test Ban in
1963.  But it would, in fact, not require any agreement; we could make
such a reduction, and challenge the Russians to do the same.  If they
do so, we would make another similar reduction the following year, and
so on.  This would not require any treaty, and it would enhance our
security.
      Such mutual reductions could not replace a negotiated treaty,
which has a permanence far beyond the bilateral reductions that I just
proposed.  Furthermore, a treaty could optimize the balance and
invulnerability of the two strategic forces.  This would remove the
threat of pre-emptive strikes, and the current hair-trigger readiness
that could lead to nuclear war by accident or miscalculation.
      To summarize:

        --our strategic forces are, if anything, superior to the
      Soviets';
        --our national security, and that of our allies, is most
      threatened by the grotesque size and continuing growth of
      both nuclear arsenals.

These are the basic facts.  Once they are recognized, the essential
features of a sound national security policy become apparent.

[From _T_h_e _N_e_w _Y_o_r_k _R_e_v_i_e_w _o_f _B_o_o_k_s, June 10, 1982, p. 3.]

______________________________________________________________________

If you want a copy of the unabridged text (162 lines, 10,175
characters, or about 20 blocks), send Mail to ...ucbvax!G:asa.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 82 23:25:10-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca.fortune!kiessig at Berkeley
Subject: Rocket Planes vs. Rocket Ships
Article-I.D.: fortune.69
Via:  news.usenet; 23 Jun 82 2:40-PDT

        Well, in a way you could say the "Rocket Planes" of the late
fifties and early sixties DID beat the "Rocket Ships" into space.  In
August 1960, (I think the Vostok I Sputnik was launched April 12, 1961) Bob
White went up in the X-15 and set a new altitude record of 136,500 feet
(slightly more than 25 miles).  The conditions had been almost precisely
those of space flight.  He took the ship up in a ballistic arc, like the
Mecury-Redstone was supposed to go on.  He experienced 5G's (astronauts
were to get 6G's).  He was weightless for two minutes as he came over the
arc (astronauts were to get five minutes).  The air is so thin at that
altitude, that there was no aerodynamic control.  He landed the plane back
at Edwards, on the dry lake. [There is a good account of this whole story
in "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe].

	This strikes me as being very close to a shuttle-like operation.
Certainly we must have learned things from these missions 22 years ago
that have helped perfect the Shuttle.

	If only we had gone on to the X-20 (the X-15 with the XLR-99
engine had 57,000 lbs. thrust, and finally made it to 354,200 ft.
[67 miles -- 17 miles into space] and 4,104 miles/hour [mach 5.92]).
The Mercury-Redstone had 78,000 lbs.  The Mercury-Atlas had 280,000 lbs.
The X-20 was to have 2,800,000 lbs. of thrust, and would have taken a
man into orbit, allowing him to land anywhere he wanted.  And this was
in 1963!!  Imagine where we could be now had we followed that line
of research.....

Rick

P.S. Does anyone out there know what happened to the prototype X-20
     that was being built by Boeing in 1963, before the project was
     cancelled?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #223    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 223

Today's Topics:
			    Russian computers
	       Shuttle computers, and the military in space
			  Re: Russian computers
			    3RD TIME IN ORBIT?
			    Technology "theft"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 82 20:09:07-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: Russian computers
Article-I.D.: watmath.2799
Via:  news.usenet; 23 Jun 82 2:59-PDT

	Hmm.  Point taken (this is in ref. to zehntel.335(?)).  And, of course,
once they buy the 8080's, they can send the damned things off in the diplomatic
pouch and *how in the hell do we stop them*?  The short answer, of course, is
that we can't - short of breaking off diplomatic relations with the Soviets and
all of their satellites, and not permitting mail or any form of communication
with any nation that maintains traffic with the Soviets.
	That would be a very moral stand, or course, but not too practical...
							Rick.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 82 14:58:10 EDT
From: cobb at NBS-VMS
Subject: Shuttle computers, and the military in space


   The following is fuzzily remembered information from an
unknown source, but for what it's worth:

   I seem to remember that the shuttle computers (five per shuttle,
built by IBM) were originally designed for Hughes to use in
their sooper-dooper radar/fire-control system for the F-15
fighter plane.  The design was frozen in 1973.  They probably
use MSI TTL technology, which is old and grundgy but has proven
reliable in practice, especially when built to MIL specs.

EXIT INFO MODE; ENTER FLAME MODE:

   A partnership between NASA and the military isn't necessarily
such a bad thing.  After all, we've had one 'de facto' for the
last twenty years, and it hasn't hurt us that much.  If you doubt
that, consider:
   -well over half the astronauts (at least, up 'til the current
crop) started out as military jet jocks...
   -a great deal of NASA's hardware is derived from military
equipment (examples: the Shuttle computers \and/ the software
reliability methodology for them; NASA's boosters, which are
all derived from ICBM's (Redstone, Atlas, and Titan \are/ ICBM's);
also the space suits, the tracking stations, etc...
   -there is stuff out there which needs protecting.  Losing a
bunch of comsats would play hell with domestic communications.
Losing some of our recon or early-warning satellites would
undoubtedly put the military on red alert.  While the Soviets can't
(yet) shoot down a group of satellites at once, they are getting
better at it.  And think what a beautiful target a space factory
or colony would make for some random terrorist!

   No, I'm not trying to spread the Cold War into space.  But the
military-NASA partnership has been beneficial to both sides in
the past; the reflexive distaste that this list seems to have for
the military is a little strange.  No matter how fast and how far
the pioneers moved west in the last century, there always came a
time when they yelled for the cavalry, and were damned glad the
cavalry was right behind them.  We will be (we hope to be) building
some big, expensive, and useful installations in space in the next
few years, and there will undoubtedly be those who want to take 
them away from us.  It doesn't make sense to go out unprotected.

                      Sorry for flaming so much,
                                    Stewart

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 82 15:19:49-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!pdh at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Russian computers
Article-I.D.: hplabs.481
Via:  news.usenet; 23 Jun 82 18:14-PDT

Somebody touched on the important issue in the hig-tech security discussion
some time ago, and then it seems to have been forgotten.  As any serious-
thinking engineer will testify, all the hardware in the world, however
sophisticated, is useless without good software, AND vice versa!  The con-
glomeration of 68000's and 6809's, etc., etc., that I have sitting at my
house probably totals to the equivalent of a system 370.  However, it will
probably take me (and several others along with me) years to get them all
working efficiently together (not to mention individually).  You can bet
that the Russians *already* have enough American technology sitting somewhere
behind the Iron Curtain to fill a good sized machine room.  Now if only
it were quite so easy to smuggle (or coerce) humans out of the U.S.  Then
we'd have something to worry about.

				Peter

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 1982 1938-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS at USC-ECL>
Subject: 3RD TIME IN ORBIT?
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
cc: TCS at USC-ECL

Someone made the comment that the launching of STS-4 will be the 3rd time
that U.S. and Soviet astronauts and cosmonauts will be in space at the
same time.  Other than the Apollo-Soyuz mission, when else have Americans
and Soviets been in space at the same time?

T.C.Savage

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 1982 0101-EDT
From: JHENDLER at BBNA
Subject: Technology "theft"
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 23-Jun-82 0602-EDT

Another example of the high technology smuggling was discovered during
the Yom Kippur war between Egypt and Israel.  The Israelis captured a large
number of soviet made missiles, and discovered that the guidance systems were
made by Texas Instruments.  
  However, things are tighter now than they were then.  The government's
restrictions (Called the "Bucy laws" after TI president J. Fred Bucy)
severely limit what technology is allowed out of the US.  We recently had
a long battle with TI management over whther some of our natural language
group could go to the COLING (Computational Linguistics) conference in Praque.
We were finally allowed to go, once it was determined that the Russians would
have very little use for an English language syntactic parsing scheme, but I
think the unwillingness of US business to send people to Iron Curtain 
countries is becoming manifest.  Their unwillingness to sell chips, etc. 
to the Russians is even starting to overcome their greed for the Russian
marketplace.
  -Jim Hendler
   Texas Instruments, Dallas.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Jun-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #224    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 224

Today's Topics:
			    Next week in space
			       X-20 reentry
       Radio Shack 8080's escaping in Soviet diplomatic pouches...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 1982 10:28:13-EDT
From: clements at NRL-CSS (P. C. Clements)
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Next week in space

With six cosmonauts and two astronauts orbiting next week, there will be
eight people in space.  Is that a record?

------------------------------

Date: 24 June 1982 1338-EDT (Thursday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  X-20 reentry
Message-Id: <24Jun82 133841 DS30@CMU-10A>

The X-20 wasn't called Dyna-Soar (Dynamic Soaring) for nothing.  It was
to be fully reusable, and didn't use ablative heat shields.  The method
of atmospheric entry was to come in at a shallow angle until it got hot,
then to aerodynamically pull up, leaving the atmosphere to radiate the heat
away.  It would skip off the atmosphere many times as it slowed.  When
it was going slow enough, it would come on in.

About ten years ago, I saw a drawing of a proposal North American
Aviation had made for a Super-X-15.  It was bigger than the existing
ones;  I don't know what they proposed to do for a heat shield.  The
drawing showed it being launched on top of an Atlas.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 1982 0510-PDT
From: Allan M. Schiffman <Schiffman at SRI-KL>
Subject: Radio Shack 8080's escaping in Soviet diplomatic pouches...
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Schiffman at SRI-KL
In-Reply-To: Your message of 24-Jun-82 0302-PDT

It's interesting that a group of people ostensibly informed about
computer technology should spend so much time discussing locking the
barn door after the horse has escaped.

The Soviets have had substantial IC production capability for many
years.  In 1979 CDC, in supplying information in support of an export
licence application (to sell machines to the USSR) revealed that they
had done a "strip job" on Soviet electronic equipment obtained in
Eastern Europe. 

There were several "reverse-engineered" IC's found; the CDC experts
paid careful attention to soviet-manufactured 8080s and 16K dynamic
RAMs.  The DRAM seemed to have been a copy made by a photographic
process {generating masks from photographs of carefully scraped
layers}.  The 8080 was a new design -- it had an 8085-type bus, but
an 8080 type clock generator {i.e. no clock generator}.

I believe it is the case that 8085s have been in production in CHINA
since 1981.

There is every reason to believe that anything you can buy in Radio
Shack, the Soviets can make.

Of course, possibly due to their notoriously inefficient central
planning, they lack the infrastructure to do so CHEAPLY.  This is
slightly less important for military applications.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that theoretical computer
science is similiarly backward.  However, it's a good bet that their
trained manpower is miniscule compared to the U.S., computers are more
like rarities there.

I hope to find a reference to that CDC study within a few days; in the
meantime:
	"Database Management Systems Development in the USSR"
		- A.G. Dale; ACM Computing Surveys V11#3 9/79
	"The Soviet Bloc's Unified System of Computers"
		- N.C. Davis, S.E. Goodman; ACM Computing Surv. V10#2 6/78
	"Computing in China 1980"
		- H.D. Huskey; IEEE Computer V14#10 10/81

-Allan
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #225    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 225

Today's Topics:
		     Lagrange Point Satellite - (nf)
			    Enterprise status
			      Neptune Rings
			     Russian shuttle?
			       Space Search
		      Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
			    Re: Rocket Planes
     Re: Radio Shack 8080's escaping in Soviet diplomatic pouches...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 82 14:26:48-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca!decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!truchon at Berkeley
Subject: Lagrange Point Satellite - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.181
Via:  news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 6:21-PDT

Reply-To: s

#N:uiucdcs:12700001:000:305
uiucdcs!truchon    Jun 10 13:47:00 1982

 In an issue of Astronomy magazine from a couple of years back, there
was a small article which told of a satellite which had been put into
orbit about a lagrange point between the Earth and Sun. I do not remember
which issue it was but I am pretty sure that it was from 1979 or 1980.
  
     Lee Truchon

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 82 17:15:02-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: Enterprise status
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2140
Via:  news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 6:35-PDT

Last I heard, the Enterprise is not considered as a flyable shuttle
any more.  Basically, it's overweight and below flight standards in
other minor ways.  This is why the static test prototype, orbiter
099, is being refurbished to become a real orbiter.  Originally the
Enterprise was to be the second orbiter and the static-test article
was never to be a complete orbiter.  Now the Enterprise's official
fate is to be cannibalized for parts, I think.

Mind you, if NASA suddenly needs another orbiter badly (if one of
the existing ones crashes, say) after the production line is closed,
it might be Real Handy to have this almost-orbiter sitting in storage...

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 82 9:08:03-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca!decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Neptune Rings
Article-I.D.: alice.628
Via:  news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 6:36-PDT

Scientists have announced the possible discovery of two rings
around the planet Neptune.  The discovery came from examination
of data obtained in 1968 (and lost until now) from an eclipse
of a star by Neptune, the same way in which Uranus' rings were
discovered.  They have not yet confirmed the finding, though,
and are asking other observatories which have data from that
event to reexamine it.  In the next couple years, stars will
again be in a position where the occultation will take place,
and scientists will have another chance to observe the possible
rings.  The real sight will come in 1989, if Voyager II makes
it all the way to Neptune and is able to send pictures back.
Neptune would join Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus in having a ring
system.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 82 23:13:53-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: Russian shuttle?
Article-I.D.: watmath.2577
Via:  news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 6:47-PDT

	Canadian news tonight had more on the story:
	Apparently the Soviet shuttle is smaller than Columbia, but winged.
The latest flight was unmanned, and took place from a secret rocket base in
the Ukraine, splashing down in the Indian Ocean.  It was picked up by Soviet
ships in the area.  The pickup was observed by Australian seamen in the area.
	Several things occur to me:
	(a) either we've been snowed, or the Soviets just can't build a
Columbia-like shuttle.  Dammit, Columbia can't fly without those IBM minis
to control the attitude jets, and (we were told) a simpler attitude jet system
won't work: remember Yeager's NF-104 near-disaster.  Their most advanced
computers are old 370/158's - they won't work, and you can't build today's
minis out of 370-level technology.  Second, they can't have anything like
Columbia's tile system - no materials industry.
	(b) Given (a), and preliminary descriptions of the vehicle, isn't
it more likely that the Soviet "shuttle" is really more an X-20 or a
DynaSoar?  After all, the only people who've seen the thing are Australian
seamen, from a fair distance.  Maybe a top-flight aerospace engineer could
tell the difference between an X-20 and a shuttle from that distance, but I
couldn't.
	(c) Why did it splash down?  The Soviets pioneered hard landings.  Why
was this one different?  Is it just because the Soviets wouldn't splash
spacecraft down in the early 1960's, when the West had navies and the Russians
didn't?
	Aside from the editorials, only one more thing:  Canadian news
(Global news in Toronto, for you Canadians on the net) quoted unnamed US
officials as saying that the Soviet shuttle had flown several times, and
that this was merely the first landing Westerners had observed.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 82 19:54:23-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca!decvax!duke!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Space Search
Article-I.D.: alice.677
Via:  news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 7:31-PDT

Scientists at the Ames Research Center are now talking more than
ever about another body of some sort in our solar system.  They
say that Pluto is too small to be affecting the orbits of
Uranus and Neptune as much as they had earlier expected.  So,
Pioneers 10 and 11 are now searching around to find the object.
They hope that the two spacecraft, launched ten years ago and
now on opposite sides of the sun, will be affected by the
gravitational pull of the object and will yield the approximate
position of it.  Possibilities are a tenth planet (though it
would have to be very dark to have evaded observation), a brown
dwarf star (one that never ignited), a dark star that is just
passing through the solar system, or even a black hole, and
many others.  A black hole is considered unlikely though, since
the energy usually found around it has not been detected.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 82 10:21:29-PDT (Sat)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca!decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours
Article-I.D.: alice.680
Via:  news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 7:54-PDT

References: gsp86.125

It is true that NASA is considering pushing back the first landing
at KSC to either STS-6 (January, 1983) or STS-7 (Spring, 1983)
instead of STS-5 (tentatively scheduled for 11 November, 1982).
This is in order to gain more crosswinds landing data for the
shuttle.  At KSC, corsswinds prevail, and they would rather have
the bird fly off the side of the runway at Edwards, where there
is just desert, than at KSC, where there are alligators.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 82 11:56:37-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Rocket Planes
Article-I.D.: whuxlb.307
Via:  news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 13:28-PDT

True, we did NOT have the technologies in the early 60s to build the shuttle.
But some of us who were around at the time got very upset with NASA/DoD
for cancelling the DynaSoar (X-20) and going with non-reusables.

Maybe that requires background.  I cut my teeth on the visions of Willy Ley
and others, who expected us to ENGINEER the conquest of space: build strong
technological foundations as you went.  Those visionaries expected the
development of reusable low-earth-orbit technology followed by permanent
manned LEO stations followed by (manned) exploration of the moon and the rest
of the solar system, incorporating (are you ready?) APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY
as it became available (ion jets, atomic engines, non-aerodynamic vehicles,
etc.).

The fact is largely forgotten now, but the initial NASA plan was for the
Saturn V to be a SMALL PROTOTYPE for an order-of-magnitude larger booster
designated Nova.  Nova would have delivered a 75-ton Apollo package
(command module, service module, lunar takeoff module, lunar landing module)
directly from earth surface to lunar surface; that plan was scrubbed only
when Gemini demonstrated that we really could accomplish rendevous.
I don't retell this to ridicule, merely to illustrate the atmosphere at
NASA in the early 60s: brute force was the default method, and the objective
was not "get into space" but simply "beat the russians to the moon."

Ah, water over the dam.  My best hope now is that enough corporations will
find LEO an enticing manufacturing environment that funding the shuttle,
its successors, and permanent space facilities will simply be good business.
Maybe I should learn Japanese...

=Ned Horvath=

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 1982 1045-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n543  0347  25 Jun 82
BC-STATION-06-25
    By Richard Gilluly
    (c) 1982 The Baltimore Sun (Field News Service)
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has revived the
idea of a permanent manned space station.
    In outlining the idea, NASA chief James M. Beggs said the space
station would be the next logical step after the agency's shuttle
spacecraft becomes fully operational - which could be soon if the
fourth and final shakedown mission of the shuttle, scheduled for
liftoff Sunday, is successful.
    The space station ''would be small at first, assembled in orbit with
modules carried to space by the shuttle,'' he said.
    The cost of establishing the first small station, perhaps by 1990,
would be from $3 billion to $5 billion, according to a NASA fact
sheet released in connection with Beggs' announcement, which was made
Wednesday before a joint session of the Economic Club of Detroit and
the Engineering Society of Detroit.
    The idea of a permanent space station was proposed in connection
with the shuttle in the early '70s, but was deferred along with other
space proposals when the program was cut back.
    Beggs said the space station could greatly improve mankind's ability
not only to assess the impact of Earth activities, but to launch
probes of Mars and Venus that could lead to a better understanding of
the future evolution of the Earth and how it developed from the solar
nebula, the diffuse mass of hot gases from which the planets are
thought to have condensed.
    A space station also would improve commercial applications of space
technology, including the gravity-less processing of materials and
the servicing of communications satellites, he added.
    He said the stationwk5r tpe
shuttle because the shuttle is an ideal vehicle with which to
construct it. The shuttle lifts off like a rocketship and then
returns to Earth to land like an airplane, and is able to carry large
cargoes into space. It is man's first almost wholly reusable
spacecraft.
    NASA spokesmen say the first space station would have a crew of
three or four astronauts and scientists, but eventually as many as 12
crew members could be accommodated. The crew might spend as long as
three months in space, and they would be taken to and from the
station via the shuttle.
    Beggs emphasized that the station would not be a successor to the
shuttle - which, he said, is a transportation system - but rather a
successor to Skylab, a manned station launched in 1973 for scientific
experimentation. Skylab finally re-entered the atmosphere and
disintegrated because NASA had no way to boost it into a permanent
orbit.
    The proposed space station would be equipped with maneuvering
rockets which would allow it to stay in orbit indefinitely.
    Besides Skylab, the Soviets have operated a space station, Salyut 6,
since 1977, which has accommodated five Soviet crews as well as 11
visiting crews from Soviet bloc nations. Salyut 7, recently launched,
is now occupied by cosmonauts and, according to Biggs, may
''represent a larger, more sophisticated system that would move the
Soviet Unon another step forward in its dominance in near-Earth
space.''
    Sen. William Proxmire (D, Wis.), a frequent critic of NASA
proposals, wasn't available for comment, but a spokesman said it
would be safe to say he would be ''negative'' toward the proposal.
    The spokesman, Tom VanDerVoort, said that now is a particularly
inappropriate time for NASA to propose a space station in view of
what he said is the uncertainty of the shuttle garnering enough
commercial payloads to become a paying proposition.
    In connection with earlier suggestions that NASA might propose a
space station, Proxmire has said the space agency ''has a bias toward
huge and very expensive projects. It proceeds regardless of real
need.''
    Terence Finn, a member of NASA's space station task force, a group
studying the possibility of deploying such a station, said Proxmire's
criticisms are not necessarily valid.
    He admitted that NASA is starting with the idea of a space station
and then working from there to specify its exact purposes, but he
said this approach is preferable. The reason, he said, is that all
the potential users will have ''input'' into how it is constructed.
    It will be a station designed from the very start to serve the
purposes of its users instead of the other way around, he said.
    Among the potential users now being approached are military,
scientific and commercial interests.
    But he stressed that the space station is not yet at the proposal
stage. The next step, he suggested, would be more intensive studies
than the preliminary ones now being conducted. These more intensive
studies might cost $10 million to $15 million as contrasted with the
$3 million or so now being spent on the preliminary studies.
    Finn said the European Space Agency, the Japanese and the Canadians
had expressed interest in participating in a U.S. space station
program.
    END
    
nyt-06-25-82 0644edtt
***************

[I understand that some of the various space groups are trying to do a
mail campaign to Reagan and Keyworth to support this station  --Tom]

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 82 12:00:15-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!pdh at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Radio Shack 8080's escaping in Soviet diplomatic pouches...
Article-I.D.: hplabs.487
Via:  news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 18:31-PDT

Think not just of Radio Shack when you talk about what technology the Soviets
can make or obtain.  Right now, today, ANYONE can go out and buy, say, a SUN
Workstation and a disk, which would give the user lots of power (68000 10MHz),
very high level graphics (1K x 1K, and FAST), network capability (3Mbit ether),
and all of this in a very portable box!  I'll wager that about 10 or 15 of
these toy, all linking and talking on their network, could do justice to
95% of the applications on a shuttle.  All it would take is a little beefing
up of the durability of the system and (her's the catch) the right software,
and poof...  all the power you could ask for for about $300K....   

Granted, it's probably more than a notion to get 15 SUN stations out of the
country, but you can bet that it's possible, if difficult.

Again, as I said in an earlier message, though, it's the software in this
case that counts...

					Peter

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #226    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 226

Today's Topics:
			Planetary system formation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 1982 1332-EDT
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX>
Subject: Planetary system formation
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-XX

	This was prompted by the business about the brown dwarf; it's
probably completely harebrained, but here goes: as I understand it,
the current theory among geo-whatevers (I may be out of date here,
corrections/updates requested) is that the reason the inner planets
aren't gas giants has to do with the fact that a) they are smaller,
and b) they are at a higher temperature; the combination (varying
frlmo planet to planet) of the smaller potential energy well and the
higher particle speed allows all the light gasses to escape. Now, I
might believe this for Mercury, but it seems a bit dim for Mars, which
is pretty cold; it requires some mechanism to explain why all the
inner planets are much smaller than the outer ones.
	What crossed my mind is the possibility that at some point in
the past the sun was somewhat larger and cooler than it is now for a
brief period. The inner planets might have actually been inside the
tenous outer layers of the sun briefly, and would have had most of
their light gasses boiled off, which would explain why the switch to
gas giants is so abrupt. Now, according to classical stellar evolution
theory, the sun's headed there anyway as a red giant, but couldn't
have been there yet and will take a while to get there. I can,
however, conceive of several possible ways for this to happen very
briefly in ways that would not show up on the long term scale.
	One would be a massive flare or instability of some sort, of
short duration (of the sort that some people used to think killed the
dinosaurs, but on a larger scale), but this seems far-fetched. That
sort of energy output should have affected the outer planets as well,
although I suppose if it was brief enough it might be possible.  The
other one (that I like better) is that the proto-sun stage would also
have been about red giant size and somewhat lower temperature, but
very short-lived as the material coalesced inward heating up until the
sun entered the main sequence with gravitational and radiation
pressures equalized. Anyone know if this is in fact part of the
current explanation, or if it's reasonable?
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Jun-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #227    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 227

Today's Topics:
			    USSR IC production
			    Technology "theft"
			 Military & NASA in space
			   space shuttle launch
		  Political Opposition to Space programs
		       re: formation of the planets
		    Enterprise & Columbia & Star Trek
		     record number of humans in space
		  Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal
			Re: Space Search (V2 #225)
			     New Flies Twist
			  Re: 3RD TIME IN ORBIT?
	       Re: Microprocessors for Russian Shuttle, etc
		       Listening into Shuttle talk
			       Dial Shuttle
				900 number
			  Countdown on Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 1982 1414-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: USSR IC production
To: schiffman at SRI-KL
cc: space at MIT-MC

You are probably correct in saying that such copying of US ICs is
an expensive process.  However, it should also be a buggy one -
ie you are working with a copying technique (using photos as a guide)
that would seem to decrease yeild sharply.  This is important in
military applications, since reliability is an extremely important
goal.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 1982 1705-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Technology "theft"
To: jhendler at BBNA
cc: space at MIT-MC

I am glad that some of our capitalists are getting their act together
and denying the Soviets some of the fruits of our labors.  However,
people should remember that there is a lot of difference between the
Soviets knowing that something works, knowing how it works, having a
working model, and developing the capability to manufacture and
maintain that product.  The conflict we have here is mainly in the
first and second areas, ie the research phase (I know of no one who
seriously advocates us becoming a supplier of the Soviets or building
high-tech plants for them, although some of our Western European
"allies" come close).  In particular University research meant for
publication probably should not be restricted by the government, since
the incremental benefits the Soviets gain are far outweighted by our
gains in promoting a free flow of information throughout the
community.  The same sort of issues surface when discussing links
between Universities and industrial research labs.

As for the distinctions between military and non-military technology,
they are only really possible in those last two stages - and even
here, commercial technology can often be easily adapted to military
ends.  Although a blanket ban is not justified, completely free trade
is hardly possible either.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 1982 1732-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Military & NASA in space
To: cobb at NBS-VMS
cc: space at MIT-MC, arms-d at MIT-MC

I have no objections to the Military and NASA cooperating in
space - security is needed for space facilities, space is a
natural area of military interest because it is such "high
ground," and, quite frankly, NASA can do with some help from
the DoD lobby on Capital Hill.  What I object to is the
military mistreating NASA - such as not paying a proper
proportion of the space shuttle costs, or the costs of a
space station that will be used by the military.  If anything,
DoD, being richer than NASA, should be paying a greater that
"just" share of the costs.  I also want to make sure that the
military uses of space do not prevent commercial exploitation
of space.  Given DoD's track record, I do think it is proper
to continue to exert pressure on behalf of NASA on DoD.

Jim

------------------------------

Mail-From: PCO-MULTICS received by MIT-MULTICS at 27-Jun-1982 23:19:06-edt
Date:  27 June 1982 20:16 mst
From:  Jarrell.FSOEP at PCO-MULTICS
Subject:  space shuttle launch
Reply-To:  Jarrell.FSOEP%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS
To:  space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC

 The launch went great, with only on exception. The SRB's, which usually
float on the surface after splashdown until the recovery tug can get to
them, sank, costing NASA (and us) some 25 million dollars.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 1982 2144-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Political Opposition to Space programs
To: space at MIT-MC

What I cannot understand is why people such as Proxmire continue to,
simply put, lie about the space program.  How he can possibly contend
that there is no demonstrated demand for the shuttle is beyond me.  And
now he is attacking the space station concept on the same grounds.

Is this simple political expediency, or is there even a semi-rational
reason for attacking these programs on pragmatic grounds?

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 1982 0933-EDT
From: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: redford at WAFER
Subject: re: formation of the planets
Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11835425400.32.583.3428 at DEC-MARLBORO>

As I understand the current theory of planetary composition, it
has little to do with flares or instabilities in the sun.  Rather, it's
based on the makeup of the original nebula that the sun and planets
condensed out of.  As the nebula contracted there would be a temperature
gradient from the center to the outer fringes.  The very center would
be too hot for any compounds whatsoever to solidify.  As you went a little
farther out the refractory metals like tungsten would condense, because
the temperature (and pressure) would have dropped below their freezing
point.  As you keep moving out more and more solids become possible.
By the time you get to the orbits of the gas giants, substances like
methane and ammonia will liqueify.  Since there is a great deal more 
carbon and nitrogen than there is tungsten and iron, the outer planets
wind up being a lot bigger.  The gaseous methane and ammonia around the
inner planets gets blown away once the sun ignites.
   Now, we know roughly what the original elemental composition was.
We know the boiling points of the common compounds and so can figure
out what the order of condensation should be.  Given the mass of the
original nebula we can figure out how much energy is released in contraction.
If we know how much of this radiant energy is reabsorbed by the cloud, and
if we assume certain models for mixing, we can calculate what the
temperature and pressure gradients should be.  This should tell us the chemical
compostion of the inner planets.  J. S. Lewis of MIT predicts that: 

"Mercury has a massive Fe-Ni alloy core surmounted by a small mantle of
Fe+2-free magnesium silicates.  Refractory oxides are present but only traces
of alkali metals, sulfur, FeO, etc.  Venus has Fe_ni core, a massive mantle
of Fe+2 free magnesium silicates, and a silicate rich crust similar to earth's.
Sulfur is probably absent.  The earth has an inner core of Fe_ni and an outer
core of Fe-FeS melt.  Cetain chalcophile elements are deficient in the mantle
and crust but enriched in the outer core.  The mantle contains 10% FeO.
Deficiencies of S, K, Rb, and Cs in the crust and upper mantle are due to 
their extraction into an FeS-rich melt.  Mars is almost devoid of free iron,
may contain a core of FeS, and has a mantle rich in FeO.  Hydrous minerals
were probably retained.  The crust should be more iron-rich than the earth's."

    The densities calculated agree with those observed, but I don't know
if info from the Viking, Voyager, and Venera probes confirm the theory.
The theory also explains the composition of meteorites, though I get the
impression that it doesn't explain it all that well.  I'm kind
of awed that this can be done at all.  I learned all this from a book called
"Frontiers of Astrophysics" edited by Eugene H. Averett.
   --------

------------------------------

Date:  28 June 1982 10:14 edt
From:  CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Enterprise & Columbia & Star Trek
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

According to the "Star Fleet Technical Manual", Enterprise is a
Constitution-class starship, not a Columbia-class starship as was earlier
stated.  The only reference to Columbia I can find in the SFTM is to a
scout/diplomatic starship.

------------------------------

Date:  28 June 1982 10:08 edt
From:  CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  record number of humans in space
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

With the launch of the shuttle, there are now seven (not eight) people in space.
There are two Soviet cosmonauts who have been up there for a while, two more
Soviets and a Frenchman who just recently joined them, and two Americans.  This
is the third time that there have been seven people in space at the same time.
The first was the Soyuz 6-7-8 mission, and the second was during the ASTP, when
the Soviets had, in addition to the ASTP Soyuz, a crew occupying a Salyut.

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 28 June 1982  08:25-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal
To: space at mit-mc
cc: King at KESTREL

	I was reading about the possible discovery of rings aroung
Uranus and Neptune.
	It seems to me that it would be handy to have a Large Space
Telescope clone equipped with a solar sail so that when an astronomer
wanted to engineer an occultation (very useful for studying stars as
well as planets) (s)he could order the Mobile Large Space Telescope
to trundle to the appropriate place, rather then waiting for the
shadow to happen to reach the Earth.
	When we got tired of that we could send it to the vacinities
of each of the planets in turn and have a really close look...
	Comments?

					Dick

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 1982 12:14 PDT
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Space Search (V2 #225)
In-reply-to: sjb at Berkeley's message of 25 Jun 82 7:31-PDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

Some of the possibilities to explain outer planet perturbations are very
speculative, to say the least.  Tombaugh (discoverer of Pluto) and other
astronomers knew in the 30's that Pluto was too small to explain the
perturbations, if the estimated accuracies of positions for Uranus and Neptune
were correct.  That is why Tombaugh continued his search of all parts of the sky
except the polar regions for more than an additional decade.  He pretty well ruled
out the possibility of a planet with any reasonable brightness within a reasonable
distance of the sun (several times Pluto's distance).  

The alternative, of course, is that the accuracy of positional measurements of
Uranus and Neptune was just not that good.  Both the discoveries of Neptune
and Pluto near the places predicted by perturbation analysis have been called
lucky coincidences, since the perturbations being analyzed were nearly
indistinguishable from errors in positional measurement.  The orbits and masses
of the predicted planets didn't agree very well, only the positions at discovery
time did.  

One thing that has sparked new hope for another planet/object is the discovery
in Galileo's notes of his sighting of an object that has to be Neptune.  The
position is somewhat off from predictions, but again is of questionable accuracy. 
The newly derived mass of Pluto from measurements of its satellite was claimed
to have prompted excitement, but even its old erroneously large mass estimate
was far too small to explain the perturbations.  

Jupiter has been called a near-star that never ignited, so I am not sure there is
any difference between a large planet and a "brown dwarf".  Anyway, don't
hold your breath till an object is found.  I think the odds are against it, but that
does not mean we should not analyze the Pioneer spacecraft data for
perturbations.  It just might lay to rest the speculations on another planet.  Then
there is always a chance ...

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 82 7:21:51-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: New Flies Twist
Article-I.D.: alice.704
Via:  news.usenet; 28 Jun 82 23:27-PDT

Remember Todd Nelson?  He designed the experiment aboard STS-3
that observed flies flying around in their weightless environment.
Well, a new twist has been discovered.  It seems that the flies
laid 57% fewer eggs than their Earth-bound counterparts.  This
was unexpected but nevertheless confirmed by a team of the
University of Houston biologists.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 82 9:27:19-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!rabbit!jj at Berkeley
Subject: Re: 3RD TIME IN ORBIT?
Article-I.D.: rabbit.559
Via:  news.usenet; 28 Jun 82 23:59-PDT

References: sri-unix.1861

Of course, the THIRD time that both the US and
the USSR are in space at the same time doesn't
have anything to do with the fact that the shuttle
is carrrying a military cargo, does it?
I hope not.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 82 8:28:04-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!kjl at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Microprocessors for Russian Shuttle, etc
Article-I.D.: iuvax.110
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 0:02-PDT

References: duke.2260

I remember going through an issue of SOVIET EXPORT magazine about two years
ago and finding an artice on the latest in Soviet computer technology.  The
machine that they were touting was extremely similar in both basic design and
appearance to the PDP-11.  Of course, I wouldn't ever suggest that the similar-
ity was anything but a coincidence.....

					Ken Lebowitz
					(iuvax!kjl)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 1982 2304-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Listening into Shuttle talk
To: space at MIT-MC

You can listen into the transmissions between ground control and the
shuttle directly by dialing (900) 410-6272.  This service costs $0.50
for the first minute, $0.35 for each additional minute.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 82 13:39:49-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!houxi!houxc!9212osd at Berkeley
Subject: Dial Shuttle
Article-I.D.: houxc.218
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 0:24-PDT

AT&T is offering a number you may call on Sunday June 27
starting at 10:00am (EDT) so that you can listen (only)
the conversations between the shuttle and ground control.
The number is 900-410-6270. The rates are $0.50 for the
first minute and $0.35 cents for each additional minute.
You can be connected up to two and half hours.
I just heard the above thru the AT&T news line (noisy recording) so you
may want to verify it before acting. It should be advertised somewhere.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 82 13:32:22-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!prg at Berkeley
Subject: 900 number
Article-I.D.: we13.295
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 0:42-PDT

I tried the "900" number listed several times during the last shuttle
and always got a recorded shuttle message.  Did anyone really get
to listen in on the ground to air??

Phil Gunsul  ..lime!we13!prg

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 82 13:53:51-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Countdown on Schedule
Article-I.D.: alice.706
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 0:33-PDT

Everything has been going smoothly up until today.
Today, workers are to check the Columbia's computers and fuel
cells and also open the cargo bay doors to fill the infrared
telescope in the DoD's package with liquid helium.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Jun-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #228    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 228

Today's Topics:
				900 number
		     NASA Director meets Joan London
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #227
			 Oberg on Russian Shuttle
	   Re Proxmire [political opposition to space programs]
	   Re: Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal (V2 #227)
			     sinking boosters
			    STS-4 orbital info
			      Shuttle Update
		    Re: New Shuttle Abort Site - (nf)
			      Shuttle Update
		    Re: New Shuttle Abort Site - (nf)
	     Re: A Few Minor Problems and Sinking of Boosters
			  Paranoia (rabbit.559)
	     Re: A Few Minor Problems and Sinking of Boosters
				SRB Update
		    Re: New Shuttle Abort Site - (nf)
			  Lost Shuttle Boosters
			   Challenger Unveiling
		       Re: Russians in Radio Shack
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #227
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 82 2:43:16-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!wheps!eagle!karn at Berkeley
Subject: 900 number
Article-I.D.: eagle.395
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 5:45-PDT

The correct "dial-it" number for the shuttle missions is
900-410-6272.  (This is different from an earlier message, but I
experimented with different numbers during the last mission and the
last digit didn't seem to matter).

The service is, by default, a recording containing a status report
which repeats indefinitely until updated.  Whenever there is
activity on the communications channels, a voice-actuated switch
turns off the recording and turns on the real-time audio.  When they
stop talking, a long-time-constant switch gradually brings back
the recording.

There are large fractions of the orbit during which the shuttle is
not in view of a ground command station; also, the astronauts DO
sleep occasionally, so there can be long periods of just the
recorded message.

I find the service quite useful for verifying an orbit model
(which I also use to pick good times to call), and for just listening to
the conversations without the trigger-happy news reporters talking
on top of them.

Phil Karn
Bell Labs, Murray Hill

[Thanks also to Tony Hansen for providing similar info. -Ed
 (decvax!harpo!npois!houxi!houxs!hansen at Berkeley)]

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 82 8:56:47-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: mhtsa!ihnss!inuxc!fred at Berkeley
Subject: NASA Director meets Joan London
Article-I.D.: inuxc.166
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 6:29-PDT

	On Good Morning America today they had an interview
between Joan London and NASA Director Biggs. Maybe the Director was 
just nervous but it really worrys me when Joan London does a better
job of discussing space issues then the Director of NASA.

	The interview pointed out that in the last three years
the Russians have had men on board space stations for one and
a half of those years, and they certainly must be learning something
from all that flight time. When pressed as to what were the Americans
doing and should we be concerned about the Russian activities the
Director simple stated that NASA has been studying space platforms
since the 1960's and that we should be carefully watching the
Russians.

	I think that it is a good sign that the press is starting to 
report on the Russian activity. It is a message the the general public
needs to hear more often and it hints that indeed the US may
be in the space station business if the press and the general public
begin to support the idea.

					Fred
					ihnss!inuxc!fred

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 1982 09:27 PDT
From: Suk at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #227
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc:  Suk

I received my brilliant pink NASA vehicle pass yesterday, and am planning to
drive down to Edwards AFB for the shuttle landing.  Can anyone tell me for
what time Sunday morning the landing is scheduled?

Stan

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 1982 09:50 PDT
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Oberg on Russian Shuttle
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 29 Jun 1982 0303-PDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

James Oberg, a follower of Soviet space efforts, spoke on National Public
Radio's Morning Edition program today.  His assessment of the recent
"mysterious" launch and Indian Ocean splashdown of a Soviet vehicle was
that it was probably *not* a shuttle.

He cited several reasons for his opinion; the main one was that the
Soviets, by launching more hardware ("a million pounds a year") into
space, had achieved a cheaper cost-per-pound than the USA.  Economics
simply doesn't presently require a shuttle to achieve their objectives,
which he said centered around a space station presence.  He further said
the space station is important to them because the reliability of their
satellites is far lower than that of the U.S.; they need the repair
capability.

/John

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 1982 13:34:56-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Re Proxmire [political opposition to space programs]
Cc: csd.mcgrath at su-score

   As I understand it, Proxmire was once burned by being on the other end
of the sort of [investigation]s he now pulls off and getting severely
condemned for being on the side of wastefulness. It's a real pity he
doesn't concentrate so much on the big money-wasters---but then, that
would take work and wouldn't produce such spectacular results. I don't
know how much longer he'll last, though, since he seems to be getting
people from all parts of the political spectrum annoyed with his clowning.

   It should also be noted that, as far as "demonstrated interest" goes,
it will be interesting to see what happens in about 5 years, when the
shuttle's rates are expected to triple ($30 million -> $90 million for
sole use of a flight, roughly). It would also be interesting to see
what would happen at $30 million (?) per flight if the military weren't
taking up something over half of them.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 1982 11:13 PDT
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal (V2 #227)
In-reply-to: KING at KESTREL's message of 28 June 1982  08:25-PDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.ES

A small space telescope would probably be adequate to observe occultations. 
Much occultation work on earth is done with amateur telescopes of 4 - 8 inch
range.  Even maneuvering in earth orbit would give a good deal of flexibility in
getting to the right spot for occultations.  There are hundreds of occultations of
stars by minor and major planets that strike some point on the earth every year. 
These are ones that could be observed with a fairly small telescope with a
sensitive detector (such as CCDs), and would be scientifically quite valuable.  

There are some problems with a solar sail to maneuver a telescope.  First would
be the weeks or months it might take to get to the right place for a single
observation.  Considering the launch expense, you would want to keep a space
telescope busy almost constantly.  But then other programs than occultations
could probably take up this time.  Second, sails are no good by the time you
reach Jupiter, since the sunlight to drive them diminishes at that distance.  But a
solar sail mission with not just telescopes, but all kinds of sensors, would make a
very good mission to the inner planets, asteroids, or comets.  

PS. The discovery of rings around Neptune was "possible", but about Uranus is
pretty well confirmed.  

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 9:25:54-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!eisx!pyuxbb!mkg at Berkeley
Subject: sinking boosters
Article-I.D.: pyuxbb.149
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 18:17-PDT

CBS news reported last night that certain parts of the boosters are
reusable.  For the first time, parts were reused---the parachutes!!!
The parachute manufacturer denied in an interview that they (the
parachutes) were at fault.
   Marsh Gosnell  BTL Piscataway  (201) 981-2758  npois!pyuxbb!mkg

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 17:40:17-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Berkeley
Subject: STS-4 orbital info
Article-I.D.: eagle.413
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 18:30-PDT

The following is a set of Keplerian elements for STS-4 derived from
numbers obtained from the Johnson Space Flight Center:

Satellite: sts-4
Epoch time:      Tue Jun 29 06:30:49 1982 EDT
                 82180.43807870
Inclination:       28.4038 deg
RA of node:       320.2049 deg
Eccentricity:    0.0008500
Arg of perigee:    54.5130 deg
Mean anomaly:     351.8915 deg
Mean motion:   15.89212148 rev/day
Semi major axis:   6682.63 km
Period:              90.61 min
Apogee:             313.38 km
Perigee:            302.01 km

An orbit model using these numbers is giving pretty good prediction
times for passes over the various NASA tracking stations.

As I mentioned in an earlier article, the low inclination results in
low maximum elevations as seen from most of the US. Here in northern
NJ, maximum elevations of about 6 degrees occur during passes in the
middle morning, e.g., 8:30AM EDT.

There are some visual passes for observers in the south, e.g, Florida.
If you are in the southern US and interested, send me your latitude,
longitude and height above sea level, and I'll run my program to see
if there are any visible passes at your location.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 18:10:44-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Update
Article-I.D.: alice.740
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 18:36-PDT

With Utah State University's Getaway Special still not working,
astronauts Ken Mattingly and Henry Hartsfield wound up their third
day in space today.  They did successfully turn on (and later off)
a package from McDonnel Douglas that tested the separation of
compounds in micro gravity.  McDonnel Douglas spokesmen said that
the tests had gone very well and, depending on analysis of the
data, they may want to put up an orbiting pharmacy.  Meanwhile,
the RMS (Canadarm) went through its hardest test to date, lifting
and carrying a contamination monitor around the cargo bay; during
the test, Mattingly fired steering jets to see how the arm reacted,
just like in STS-3.

In other news, NASA has said that ships are now above the spot where
the SRB's lie on the ocean floor.  The ships will send down remote
TV's to take pictures of the empty boosters.  While NASA has said
that the shuttle will not fly until they know why the boosters sank,
a spokesman today said he envisioned no delay for STS-5.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 82 22:49:15-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!ks at Berkeley
Subject: Re: New Shuttle Abort Site - (nf)
Article-I.D.: pur-ee.377
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 18:40-PDT

#R:alice:-71300:pur-ee:3800001:000:354
pur-ee!ks    Jun 27 15:23:00 1982

Is the shuttle's flight inclination the reason for the change, or is it
the security?  I was told several months ago that the DoD package required
extra security, thus the emergency landing sites had to be at fully
defended U.S. bases.  This came from a reliable source (an astronaut).
Any comments?  Am I missing some important detail?

					Kirk Smith

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 7:30:05-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Update
Article-I.D.: alice.735
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:26-PDT

The space shuttle is still soaring around the Earth today, and
the Getaway Special still has not been activated.  Astronauts
Hartsfield and Mattingly are to try again today to start it;
apparently, there is a problem with a remote control system
that is preventing them from doing so.

Meanwhile, NASA has attributed the sinking of the SRB'S to malfunctions
in their decelerator systems (i.e. parachutes)  They say that unless
they can find out what happened and correct it in the next pair,
STS-5 may have to be delayed.  They do not want to lose another pair.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 7:45:01-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: New Shuttle Abort Site - (nf)
Article-I.D.: alice.737
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:29-PDT

References: pur-ee.377

Could well be.  All the AP story said was that it was for
the inclination.  No mentioned was made of the DoD package.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 7:43:44-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: A Few Minor Problems and Sinking of Boosters
Article-I.D.: alice.736
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:30-PDT

References: watmath.2848

The problem with doing that is all the water (or ice) is left
there.  This adds weight.  NASA says it's the extra weight
from the water which may have caused the shuttle not to attain
its expected orbit.  Also, it could cause some handling problems,
or maybe other things.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 3:14:37-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley
Subject: Paranoia (rabbit.559)
Article-I.D.: watmath.2862
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:22-PDT

Russians and Americans and military hardware orbiting concurrently is a
worry?  My god, what a paranoid thought!  There is all kinds of military
hardware up there.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 82 18:27:55-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!watmath!atbowler at Berkeley
Subject: Re: A Few Minor Problems and Sinking of Boosters
Article-I.D.: watmath.2848
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:17-PDT

References: alice.730

   Why is it neccessary to bake out the water by facing the sun?
IN that vacuum won't the tiles simply be "freeze dried"?  There should be
enough heat leakage from the rest of the shuttle to supply the energy, and
any spot that the water could leak into is obviously exposed to vacuum.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 82 22:11:36-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: SRB Update
Article-I.D.: alice.734
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:48-PDT

NASA has said that the sinking of the two SRB's was apparently
caused by the failure of their decelerator systems.  They are
supposed to impact on the water at around 60 mph; without the
decelerators working, they hit much harder, over their design
limit.  As part of an investigation into the accident, remote
underwater TV pictures will be taken.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 11:03:03-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!rabbit!jj at Berkeley
Subject: Re: New Shuttle Abort Site - (nf)
Article-I.D.: rabbit.575
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:57-PDT

References: pur-ee.377 alice.737

	Out of curiousity, what happens when the shuttle starts to land
with wet felt, the water boils, and the tiles all come off?   Could it
be that this is the reason for making sure that the tiles are dry?
	Considering the heat that is generated during re-entry, it
seems to me that any moisture left in the tiles would boil, very rapidly
in fact, and and blow the tiles off the ship.  I don't like the sound of that.

------------------------------

Date: 29 June 1982 2323-EDT
From: Lars Ericson at CMU-10A
Subject: Lost Shuttle Boosters
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

It seems to me that it would cost significantly less than $25 million
to salvage the shuttle boosters (they are 3000 feet down).  I am 
assuming that we have research-vessel type subs (like ALVIN) that
can go down that far.  Am I wrong on either count?

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 20:04:00-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Challenger Unveiling
Article-I.D.: alice.741
Via:  news.usenet; 30 Jun 82 0:06-PDT

The space shuttle Challenger, second in the planned fleet of
four, will be dedicated in a short ceremony this Wednesday.
After the unveiling, the shuttle will be towed to EAFB where
it will be joined by Columbia on Sunday.  At that time, the
Enterprise, the prototype shuttle, will also be at EAFB, and
President Reagan will make his speech in the presence of three
space shuttles.

[To avoid confusion now, there are no plans to change the name
of this newsgroup!]

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 82 15:56:39-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!ihnss!ihuxn!djmolny at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Russians in Radio Shack
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.162
Via:  news.usenet; 30 Jun 82 0:10-PDT

The closest Russians have come to VLSI technology is a slow, hot, poorly
packaged 8080!  Remember when the feared Foxbat MIG landed in Japan?
Japanese and US teams took it apart, and found that all the electronics
were based on vacuum tubes!  You call that computer technology?  Phooey.

						-- DJ Molny
						Bell Labs IH
						ihnss!ihuxn!djmolny

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 20:09:37-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #227
Article-I.D.: alice.742
Via:  news.usenet; 30 Jun 82 0:29-PDT

References: sri-unix.1954

Columbia is scheduled to land at 0854 EDT this Sunday.
It was originally supposed to land at 0915, but a lower
orbit due to heavier than expected fuel consumption 
(possibly due to the extra weight of the water in the
tiles) cut the flight down by 19 minutes.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #229    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 229

Today's Topics:
			   Salvaging the SRBs.
			Vacuum tubes in Foxbat MIG
		     Solar Sails at Jupiter distances
       Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal --> mobile small scope
			      cost per pound
			  electronics in Foxbat
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  30 June 1982 10:15 edt
From:  York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York)
Subject:  Salvaging the SRBs.
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 30 June 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson

While we do have the capability to salvage the SRB's from 3000 feet down
(I am pretty sure the Alvin has made trips down as far as 9000 feet), it
is probably just not worth the effort.  If they hit the water with no
parachutes (excuse me, decelerators), they are probably damaged beyond
the tolerances necessary for further launches.  The technology in the
SRB's is also probably not interesting enough to worry that the Russians
will get them if we don't.

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 30 June 1982  09:18-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Subject: Vacuum tubes in Foxbat MIG

	I know we enjoy laughing at the idea of vacuum tubes in a hot
fighter, but wasn't that designed to make the fighter EMP-resistent?

------------------------------

From: MINSKY@MIT-ML
Date: 07/01/82 01:11:35
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: Solar Sails at Jupiter distances

I don't see why solar sails don't work at Jupiter distance;
the light pressure is inverse square but so is the sun's gravity.
Everything gets slower, of course, and one must not get too close to
Jupiter itself, to maintain navigational control.  But light-sailing
is not for people in a hurry, in the first place.

------------------------------

Date: 1 July 1982 02:23-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal --> mobile small scope
To: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

Hmm, let's propose development of SEPS and using it to move a small
space telescope around to observe occultations?
It'd be fun to develop the computer software to optimize the number of
occultation experiments during a fixed time without using up all the
SEPS propellant or exceeding its maximum thrust. Probably elliptical
Earth-orbit with high eccentricity would be optimum, because at
perigee a little thrust will move apogee a lot, and observations at
apogee will involve mimimum motion of the telescope allowing best
picture-taking conditions. Perhaps one occultation can be obtained at
each apogee with a polar-elliptical orbit (apogee over a pole or
thereabouts, to be orthogonal to the plane in which the planets and
asteroids move, so that varying the apogee gives the maximum
cross-section for getting an occultation).

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 82 19:02:47-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: cost per pound
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2229
Via:  news.usenet; 30 Jun 82 23:39-PDT

Does anybody know what NASA's original projection for *eventual* cost
per pound for Saturn 5 launches was?  Remember, the original plans
envisioned mass production of the boosters, three or even four launch
pads in use at complex 39, possibly an extension to the VAB to add
two more bays (there are internal provisions for this), and I think
there were at least studies being done on making the lower stages
recoverable and reusable.  The Saturn 5 was originally going to be
the standard NASA heavy launcher well into the 1980's, launching not
only lunar missions but also planetary probes and low-earth-orbit
cargo.  All of this went down the tubes in (I think) 1967, when the
decision was made (by Congress) to halt production after the first
fifteen.  I wonder if the shuttle would really be any cheaper if this
hadn't been done.

In case anyone is interested, here is what happened to the fifteen
that were built:
	- two unmanned tests
	- ten used for Apollos 8-17 (Apollo 7 used a Saturn 1B)
	- one used to launch Skylab #1 (#2 was also intended to fly,
		but wound up in the Smithsonian after budget cuts)
	- one rusting on the lawn at Houston
	- one rusting on the lawn at Kennedy

(Yes, the ones on display at Houston and Kennedy were flight-ready
boosters, intended for Apollos 18 and 19.  Budget cuts.)

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 82 19:21:04-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: electronics in Foxbat
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2230
Via:  news.usenet; 30 Jun 82 23:43-PDT

People who criticize the Foxbat's electronics as primitive obviously
saw only the mass-media reports on it.  After the first wave of
contempt, the people studying it were much impressed with what they
saw.  True, the stuff was much inferior to what the West can do, but
it was an impressive use of the available technology.  In particular,
it is far cheaper to build than it would have been if it had been
designed in the West, even to equivalent specifications.  Remember,
the total number of Mach 3.0 (or even Mach 2.8) combat aircraft in
service in the West is *zero* -- and the Foxbat prototypes started
flying nearly twenty years ago.  That last point is worth emphasizing:
the Western fighters that were being tested and built when the Foxbat
started flying were among the first combat aircraft to use transistors
instead of tubes.  At the time, using tubes in the Foxbat was the
only sensible approach -- Russia was of course behind in semiconductor
technology, while tubes were cheap and available in quantity.  It's
also noteworthy that the Foxbat's electronics are (by design) much
easier to maintain than those of its Western contemporaries, or even
those of more recent Western aircraft.  And while that radar may be
crude, its power output is so high that it's virtually unjammable.

The Foxbat obviously could do with more modern electronics, and there
is considerable speculation that just this is in the works.  Bear in
mind that the Russians seldom hold up production of something that
works just because something better is on the way (a habit that tends
to plague Western defence purchasing).  It would not surprise me if
the computers on a hypothetical Russian shuttle were crude, barbarous,
and primitive by Western standards, but worked well enough to do the
job, and were carefully used so as to minimize the impact of their
shortcomings.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #230    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 230

Today's Topics:
			  Re: USSR IC production
		    Shuttle Pictures for sale? - (nf)
			   Galileo saw Neptune
			   REAGAN SPACE SPEECH
			     Getaway Special
		       Re: Russians in Radio Shack
 (Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal --> mobile small scope) proposal
	 Re: Re Proxmire [political opposition to space programs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 82 22:21:06-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray at Berkeley
Subject: Re: USSR IC production
Article-I.D.: gsp86.129
Via:  news.usenet; 1 Jul 82 4:23-PDT

	Copying IC's does not reduce yields that significantly, the
Japanese have been doing it for years, and look at the position they
are in now. (This is not a cut at the Japanese, it is a FACT.)

					murray at intelqa

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 16:28:03-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!krishnan at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Pictures for sale? - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.220
Via:  news.usenet; 1 Jul 82 4:30-PDT

Does anyone know the address of Laser Photo Art?  They have some great
shuttle pictures for sale, but I lost their address and I want their catalog.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 19:15:41-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: Galileo saw Neptune
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2220
Via:  news.usenet; 1 Jul 82 4:32-PDT

Actually, Galileo's position for Neptune is considered quite accurate,
partly because it is given with respect to the accurately-known position
of Jupiter and partly because the way Galileo recorded his observations
tended to cancel out some important observational errors.

In fact, if Galileo had had setting circles on his telescope, he might
have been the discoverer of Neptune.  It is clear from his notes that
he recognized Neptune as an anomalous object.  But he got only a few
chances at observations during the time when he could get Jupiter and
Neptune in his telescope simultaneously, and without setting circles he
had no way of finding a non-naked-eye object without a naked-eye object
like Jupiter as a reference.

The interest in Galileo's position is because his fairly-accurate position
in fact is not quite consistent with the "standard" orbital elements of
today.  The orbit of Neptune is not really known terribly accurately,
and the Galileo sighting (plus some later ones) strongly suggests that
either the standard orbital elements are wrong or else an undiscovered
planet is perturbing Neptune's orbit.

For more details on all this, there was an article in Scientific American
in the last year or so.  The authors were the people who discovered the
Galileo sighting.  Sorry, I don't have the exact date handy.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 82 11:05:48-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Berkeley
Subject: REAGAN SPACE SPEECH
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.352
Via:  news.usenet; 1 Jul 82 5:39-PDT
    
     When is it?  The networks seem to be scheduling only minimal coverage
of the landing.  Will the speech be made after Columbia is safed (I believe
that's the term) and towed to the hangar area?  If so, why all the fuss
about his nibs beauty rest?  Doesn't this process take some time?

                                     els
                                     Purdue (Physics)

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 82 20:08:37-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Getaway Special
Article-I.D.: alice.745
Via:  news.usenet; 1 Jul 82 6:04-PDT

Astronauts Ken Mattingly and Henry Hartsfield fixed the
Getaway Special today, after receiving instructions from
Mission Control on how to complete the circuit that activated
the unit.  Because of the delay, two of the experiments inside
would not work, but the other seven began accumulating data
as expected.

In other news, the Hartsfield and Mattingly had trouble closing
the cargo bay doors all the way, possibly due to some warping
from the extreme heat and cold they were subjected to in
test; however, after a while, they succeeded in closing them.
It is essential that they be closed for reentry.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 82 14:35:29-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Russians in Radio Shack
Article-I.D.: unc.3637
Via:  news.usenet; 1 Jul 82 6:11-PDT

Yes, the Foxbat used vacuum tubes, but I've seen speculation that that
was deliberate, to give much greater protection against EMP (electro-
magnetic pulse) from an atmospheric nuclear blast.

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 1 July 1982  10:14-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Subject: (Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal --> mobile small scope) proposal

	With this proposal, in order to minimize the size and mass of
the solar power plant we would need an energy storage facility, so the
MLST can gobble up enough energy during 3/4 of its orbit (by distance)
and 7/8 of its orbit (by time) and deliver that energy to the
propulsion system during the short perigee portion of the orbit.
	Any ideas?
	I read the Ames report on Radiation in Space (this was NOT
about cosmic rays but about devices such as space-based lasers).  They
were talking about having two satellites a few dozen KM apart sharing
a high energy electron beam.  This beam would go back and forth
between the two satellites, each of which would contain a 180 degree
bending magnet.  One of the satellites would also contain hardware for
generating and using the beam (there were various designs in the book).
	A problem is that the distance between the two satellites
would not remain constant in an elliptical orbit.  I don't know
whether this is important.
	I recommend this book.  It's part of a series of about 50
books, each of which contains about two dozen academic papers on one
aspect of agressive use of space.  I would imagine that the whole
series is of such quality.  I would definitely recommend that all who
have access to a decent university or corperate science library take a
look at the series.
	By the way, what IS the advantage of remaining in Earth orbit.
Easy maintainence, I suppose...

					Dick

------------------------------

Date:  1 Jul 1982 1903-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Re: Re Proxmire [political opposition to space programs]
To: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX, space at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 29-Jun-82 1034-PDT


The military is NOT paying $30 million - they are paying in the high teens.
I am sure they would need about the same volume if the price was $30
milllion, so this is essentially a gift of NASA funds to the military.

I have no doubts at all that the shuttle will do well.  Hell, having
five years of paying customers in advance is simply OVERKILL.  They
SHOULD raise prices to decrease demand, since clearly they have the
market they need to support the increases.

Jim

-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #231    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 231

Today's Topics:
		      Ooops!  Doors Still Not Closed
			       Doors Closed
		       Re: Russians in Radio Shack
			   Times in Antarctica?
			      LUNAR ECLIPSE
			       Shuttle Song
		     Doors Closed -- Challenger Moved
		      Re: Light Sailing Near Jupiter
		   neophyte seeks telescopic expertise
			      press coverage
		    Re: Ooops!  Doors Still Not Closed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 82 7:44:02-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Ooops!  Doors Still Not Closed

The doors of the cargo bay are still not closed all the way,
as had been reported earlier.  The problem came when the belly
of the ship was exposed to the extreme heat of the sun while
the top was exposed to the deep cold of space (all these
adjectives!)  This caused the edge of one door to warp slightly,
preventing the latched that hold the doors closed from hooking
together.  As with the last flight, the astronauts put the ship
in top-side-toward-sun format before going to bed; the night
of heat is expected to alleviate the problem.  If not, they
are prepare to put on pressure suits and take a little space
walk to fix the problem manually.  It is possible to land with
the doors open, but it is likened to doing so in a jet plane;
they'd rather not.  It would unbalance the aerodynamics of the
craft (then a rock) and also expose the inside to the heat of reentry.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 82 10:28:51-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Doors Closed

Baking the doors in the sun worked again.  After a few
hours of 250 degree heat, the cargo bay doors are now
closed, and no problems were encountered.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 82 14:05:10-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!microsof!fluke!amyh at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Russians in Radio Shack

For those unfamiliar with the problems of producing radiation-hard (radiation
resistant) electronics, the Russian plane dismantled by the US was not so
"backward" just because it contained lots of vacuum tubes.  Vacuum tubes are
harder (radiation-wise) than the ic's used in US planes.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 82 14:49:09-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!rcmcc at Berkeley
Subject: Times in Antarctica?

Does anyone know what time-of-day is observed at each
of the Antarctic bases?  Do any observe Daylight
Savings Time?  I believe some ( most? ) use GMT.
   Ron McConnell
   BTL Whippany

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 82 11:57:30-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at Berkeley
Subject: LUNAR ECLIPSE

As a last reminder to everyone interested in the Eclipse.

	July's Lunar Eclipse

	The evening of July 5-6.

	ECLIPSE TIMES            EST(local Indianapolis time)

	First penumbral          11:22 pm
	First umbral             12:33 am
	Totality begins           1:38 am
	Mid-eclipse               2:31 am
	Totality ends             3:24 am
	Last umbral               4:29 am
	Last penumbral            5:40 am

	Jog before work           6:00 am
	Start work                7:45 am

This will be the longest lunar eclipse than any since 1906. The moon
will pass very near the center of the Earths shadow. The Moon might
in fact become invisible at mid-totality but it is hard to predict
how dim it will become.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 82 12:07:17-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Song

In honor of STS-4....


	In April 1981 the world was in a mess
	The lousy Russian communist were flying in space the best
	We got to raise Columbia was the cry throughout the land
	It is time for free men everywhere to make their final stand.

	We got to raise Columbia cause the world depends on us
	We got to raise Columbia and squash a Russian fuss
	So hit the gantry running boys and swing those rockets down
	Its time we got Columbia up off the bloody ground

	Out of the dark and lonely night came a mighty man John Young
	And with his faithful copilot Bob Crippen the story's sung
	They climbed aboard Columbia the rest is history
	They paved a way to the stars so mankind can be free.

	We got to raise Columbia cause the world depends on us
	We got to raise Columbia and squash a Russian fuss
	So hit the gantry running boys and swing those rockets down
	Its time we got Columbia up off the bloody ground



	With apologies to J. Horton (sung to the tune of 
         Sink the Bismark)

					Fred
			               !ihnss!inuxc!fred

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 82 19:50:21-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Doors Closed -- Challenger Moved

The doors are closed.  After they were closed, mission control
said that the ship could not land with them ajar (as I had
said earlier)  Wind turbulence, they said, would have torn
the ship apart.  The astronauts were then told that, if they
had to make an emergency landing at any time, they should turn
the ship top-towards-the-sun to bake the doors for as long
as possible to ensure that they could close.

The space shuttle Challenger was formally given to NASA yesterday,
and today it made its first voyage:  from its hangar to EAFB.
There it will meet its sister, the Columbia, on Sunday.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 82 23:01:28-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Light Sailing Near Jupiter

Minsky remarks that light pressure is inverse square, but so is the force
of gravity; that, to a first approximation, is of course true.  However,
the force of the sun's gravity is NOT the issue: delta-v is.  Using the
light sail to KILL momentum (so you can come back) is just as important
as using it to gain momentum, and the change in momentum is exactly
proportional to the force applied, which remains inverse-square.

=Ned Horvath=

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 82 19:58:20-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!rdu at Berkeley
Subject: neophyte seeks telescopic expertise

In the course of my unschooled browsing for a first telescope I have
encountered a curiosity: two telescopes whose specifications seem roughly
equivalent and yet whose prices are disparate.

The two are the Celestron C90 and the Questar 3 1/2.  According to their
brochures they have the same design (Maksutov-Cassegrain), aperture (3.5
inches) and approximate resolution (1.0 arc seconds for the Questar vs. 1.3
for the C90).  The C90 even achieves a higher "maximum useful" power (210x
vs. 130x) and yet the Questar costs about four times as much.  Why?

I would be interested in others' knowledge or opinions on what makes a
good amateur telescope, because apparently my original intuitions (light-
gathering, resolution, power) are inadequate.  How do different designs
compare?  (Here I would consider actual experience more telling than
theory.)  How important are special lens coatings?  How real are
qualitative considerations like sturdiness and workmanship?

			Sign me
				 In the Dark
				 in Indiana

[ Mark Raabe  (pur-ee!rdu)  Purdue Library Systems ]

------------------------------

Date:  2 Jul 1982 at 1558-CDT
From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 
Subject: press coverage
To: space at mit-mc

Do wire sevices originate from somewhere in left field?

Today, the Austin American-Statesman (the local rag) carried a wire
service report which contained the following sentence:
"Then they fired one of Columbia's three main engines briefly to raise
their orbit to 195 miles..."

Gee, today orbital rendezvous and mating with an ET (boosted
clandestinely by a top-secret USAF heavy-lift vehicle, no
doubt); tomorrow, who knows?
(Haw!)

		Ken Montgomery

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 82 8:39:36-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!davidson at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Ooops!  Doors Still Not Closed

"the deep cold of space" indeed!  I hope that was facetious, but
anyway, I feel I should remind people that space at the distance the
Columbia is flying is a much better vacuum than that of a Thermos
bottle.  Other than in esoteric measures (the temperature of the
background radiation, or the "temperature" of the solar wind), space
can be thought of as not having any temperature.  The only way you
can lose (or gain) heat in space is through radiative transfer.

Does anyone have any data on to what extent the Columbia's coloring
is due to the intended effects on its albedo, how much is has to do
with other desired properties of the materials, and how much is due
to esthetics?

Greg Davidson
usenet: ...!ucbvax!sdcsvax!davidson
arpanet: davidson@nprdc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Jul-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #232    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 232

Today's Topics:
		   Shuttle landing and Reagan's speech
	 RE: Americans , Soviets and military hardware in space.
		  Re: Science in the Soviet Union - (nf)
			  Shuttle Meets Garbage
		  Re: Science in the Soviet Union - (nf)
			Heater Failure not Serious
				 Boosters
			   STS-5 May Come Early
		   Challenger and Astronauts in Houston
			       **LANDING**
		    Foxbat/Russian shuttle electronics
		       Eclipse & phase of the moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: REM@MIT-ML
Date: 07/04/82 14:53:00
Subject: Shuttle landing and Reagan's speech

Reagan spoke of an increased presence in space, thus adopting the
terminology we've been using to advocate a space station, but didn't
specifically mention a space station or platform. My guess is he's
leaning towards a space station but doesn't think it has enough public
support for him to be willing to stick his neck out and advocate it.

Reagan also spoke of encouraging private investment in space. I don't
have any idea whether he's entertaining the idea of letting a private
company (or consortium) purchase their own shuttle, or building more
government-owned orbiters to satisfy commercial demand, or what.

Otherwise I didn't hear anything new, just the old stuff about opening
space to everyone, manufacturing chemicals and biological materials,
etc. The timing was good, with the 747+Challanger taking off (at the
President's command) at the beginning of his speech and then it doing
a flyby at the end of his speech during the singing. His speech was
also technically much better than his speeches and news conferences
usually are. For example, he referred to space as having nearly zero
gravity and a nearly perfect vacuum (thus avoiding the slight mistruth
about zero gravity but avoiding the current jargon of "micro-gravity"
that most of the listeners wouldn't understand), and he referred to our
space program as having the technological lead in the world (thus
avoiding saying we are the leader in use of space which would be false
since the USSR has a space station already that has been occupied 50%
of the time in recent years and thus leads us in actual use of space
and in training for permanent habitation).

Thus I applaud his slick speech in which he expressed no reservations
about a continued space program, but I'm disappointed that he proposed
none of the programs we need (LEO station, SEPS, exploring for
Hydrogen&Carbon, a 5th and 6th orbiter).  I'm also disappointed that
no network had good coverage of the landing&speech. NBC had no
coverage at all. ABC and CBS covered the landing but ABC had technical
trouble, putting on video for a comercial ad on top of shuttle audio.
Only ABC covered the President's speech live at all.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 82 6:51:08-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Berkeley
Subject: RE: Americans , Soviets and military hardware in space.

This would appear to be the first time that so many people are in space at
the same time. However , the fact that there are soviets and americans in
space at the same time , and that the americans are caryying a military
payload , does not neccassarily mean that it is some sort of destructive
weapon. It is probably some sort of surveilance device. If it isn't ,oh
well. if the USA and USSR decide to start military eptification in space ,
then it is very sad.  Perhaps they should not be in space at all.

	Raymond S.,

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 82 19:26:29-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!kolstad at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Science in the Soviet Union - (nf)

Come close to western standards?  I have an explorer post and a
computer club:  40% of the kiddies in the explorer post have their
own microcomputers (w/disks, s/w, etc).  The computer club runs 40
kiddies on plato -- 4 CDC 6400 mainframes, 40Mb of swapping MEMORY,
13000Mb of disk.  These kids range from 7th to 12th grade.

I don't believe Soviet technology comes close to this one particular
western standard.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 82 7:30:57-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Shuttle Meets Garbage

The Columbia passed within 7.7 miles of an old, spinning Soviet
rocket booster bottom stage last night; NASA says there was no
cause for danger, but the astronauts would have taken evasive
action if there was a chance of the two, both moving at 17,000
mph, colliding.  They never even saw it.

Meanwhile, Challenger is now at EAFB, waiting for her day on
Sunday.  There is still a possibility of the Enterprise being
there, but it is not definite.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 82 15:26:42-PDT (Sun)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!grunwald at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Science in the Soviet Union - (nf)

The problem remains that you look at soviet technology from the context of
american technology when the two are not comparable. The USSR came out of
WWII with a large number of it's production facilties (what little they
had) blow to shreds. They had famaine and large numbers of dead. Many of
the dead were the people who would be needed to rebuild their country.

To not realise the great strides made by the Soviets is to do them and
yourself a disservice. Underestimating their ability and determination to
never have these things happen to themselves has caught the USA with it's
pants down several times -- when the USSR detonated its first atmoic
weapon, when they lanuched Sputnik, when they detonated the hydrogen
weapons and when they earnestly got involved in a space program.

It bothers me for some reason that people are so unwilling to see that
despite their obviously uncool political setup, the USSR has made more
advances in the time given then most other countries. To ignore said point
is to open the door to contempt, something that can not be afforded
between two superpowers who have enough power to destroy life as we know
it.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 82 9:26:49-PDT (Sat)
To: space at mit-mc
From: npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Heater Failure not Serious

A second heater in Columbia's fuel cell system failed yesterday,
but officials switched to a backup, just as they did a couple
days ago when the first one failed.  Each full cell has two heaters,
which control the pressure of liquid hydrogen flowing into the
cell.  Officials said that even if the backup heaters were to
fail, there would be no problem with generating power.

Columbia is scheduled to land tomorrow at 1210 EDT.  CBS will
begin coverage from EAFB at 1200; ABC will show the landing from
1200 to 1215, Reagan and the astronauts from 1245 to 1300, and
Reagan's space policy speech from 1345 to 1405.  NBC does not
plan to have any live coverage of the event.

A White House spokesman said yesterday that Reagan's speech
will call for a greater American presence in space, but he
will stop short of endorsing either a fifth space shuttle or
a manned space station.  [Funny, I wonder how he plans to
have a greater presence if he doesn't want to give us anything
to do it with!]

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 82 21:27:04-PDT (Sat)
To: space at mit-mc
From: npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Boosters
Article-I.D.: alice.770
Via:  news.usenet; 4 Jul 82 12:35-PDT

Navy ships today photographed one of the two SRB's that are
lying on the bottom of the ocean.  The films revealed that 
the booster was intact, and that is prompting NASA officials
to debate whether or not to salvage at least some of it to
help find out why its parachutes did not open.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 82 19:57:34-PDT (Sun)
To: space at mit-mc
From: npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: STS-5 May Come Early

The Columbia returned to Earth in such good shape today that
James Abrahamson, director of space transportation systems
for NASA, said that STS-5, now scheduled for 11 November,
could come up to 4 weeks early, depending on whether or not
the two companies that are to have satellites aboard will
be ready by then.  He also said that NASA has decided to
go ahead and recover as much as they can of one of the two
SRB's that sank.  They hope that tape recorders on the booster
will help decide what caused their parachutes to fail and
subsequently them to hit the surface of the ocean at over
300 mph.  He said that one theory was that the lightening
that accompanied the prelaunch storm may have damaged the
boosters.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 82 9:29:22-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Challenger and Astronauts in Houston

The Challenger and astronauts Mattingly and Hartsfield arrived
in Houston yesterday and spent the night there.  Today, Challenger
will go on to KSC, where it will be prepared for January's launch.
The astronauts now have a few weeks of paperwork and debriefings
to do.  The Columbia will be prepared for its ferry back to KSC
during that time, and it should be ready for a launch in October
or November.

[I'll miss a week's news at USENIX, but I'm very glad that I got
to see both the launch and the landing!]

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 82 12:19:42-PDT (Sun)
To: space at mit-mc
From: npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: **LANDING**
Article-I.D.: alice.773
Via:  news.usenet; 5 Jul 82 20:14-PDT

The Columbia sailed in to a perfect landing just a few
minutes ago on runway 22, the concrete runway at EAFB.
Unofficial flight time was 7 days, 1 hour, 9 minutes,
and 40 seconds.  In about 30 minutes, Reagan will greet
the astronauts as they come out of the ship and after
that, he will deliver his speech.  When that is over,
the Challenger will take off for KSC, but before it
clears EAFB air space, the 747 it is attached to will
perform some turns and other maneuvers for the President.

------------------------------

Date: 3 July 1982 1204-EDT
From: Lars Ericson at CMU-10A
Subject: Foxbat/Russian shuttle electronics
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

"..crude, barbarous and primitive.."  Hmm.  Do suppose they might be
running 5 PDP-8/S's networked with asynchronous line interfaces?

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 6 July 1982  05:22-EDT
From: Vince Fuller <VAF at CMU-20C>
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: Eclipse & phase of the moon

Does anyone out there have algorithms for 
   a) Calculating times of eclipses
and
   b) Calculating relative totality at a point in time during the eclipse 
      (e.g. how much of the moon is visible, how much is visible due to 
      refraction, etc.)

I have a program here which calculates and displays the phase of the moon,
and a rather serious bug became evident starting at around 1:30 (EDT) this
morning....

--vaf

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #233    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 233

Today's Topics:
		     Lawn chairs and killer shuttles
			   Shuttle OMS and RCS
			       Here! HERE!
			  Shuttle Meets Garbage
		  A Celestial?? Object--A request for ID
			   shuttle/booster miss
	     Mailing-list for "List of lists" update notices
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  3 July 1982 16:49 edt
Subject:  Lawn chairs and killer shuttles
Sender:  COMSAT.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
To:  space at MIT-MC
From:  Tim Walters <Walters.Softarts at MIT-MULTICS>

Two UPI articles of interest. No, he's not a relative of mine...

(UPI) LONG BEACH, Calif. -- Look, up in the sky. Is it a bird, a plane,
the space shuttle? No. It's Larry Walters at 16,000 feet in his lawn
chair.
   Walters, 33, a truck driver, spent nearly two hours in the air
Friday in an aluminum lawn chair suspended from a 50-foot cable attached
to 45 helium-filled weather balloons.
   Among other things, he threw a scare into a couple of airline
pilots who happened across the path of his weird flying contraption.
    "I know it sounds strange but it's true,"  said a Long Beach
police officer.  "The guy just filled up some balloons with helium,
strapped on a parachute, grabbed a BB gun and took off."
   But everything didn't go as planned and Walters had a few dicey
moments as he started getting numb in the cold atmosphere at 16,000 feet
and decided to descend -- which he accomplished by popping some of the
balloons with the BB gun. As he neared the ground he saw power lines.
    "That's when I got scared,"  he said.  "Those things can fry
you."
   He didn't get fried, the balloons draped themselves across the
wires, leaving Walters dangling in his chair a few feet off the ground
and he dropped to earth. The landing knocked out power in the
neighborhood for 20 minutes.
    "I have fulfilled my 20-year dream,"  said Walters, a truck driver
for a company that makes TV commercials.  "I'm staying on the ground. I
proved to myself that the thing works."
   In addition to the BB gun and the parachute, Walter carried several
one-gallon water jugs for ballast, a life vest and a CB radio.
    "But the best piece of equipment was the lawn chair,"  Walters
said.  "It was a Sears. It was extremely comfortable."
   Walters told authorities he was trying to drift to the Mojave
Desert, site of Sunday's scheduled space shuttle Columbia landing, but
the winds didn't cooperate.
    "I wasn't trying to upstage the space shuttle,"  Walters said.  "I
would have landed well away from there. I just wanted to lay back and
enjoy it all, but I had to do something when my toes started getting
numb."
   Police said they probably would not file charges against Walters.
But the Federal Aviation Administration was investigating, mainly
because of the scare Walters gave the airline pilots who came across him
at 16,000 feet in his flying lawn chair.


   LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- The United States has detected a Soviet test of
what some analysts believe may be  "the world's first fighter
spacecraft,"  The Los Angeles Times reported today.
   U.S. sources said the delta-winged, one-ton craft -- believed to be
an unmanned model of a previously detected Soviet space shuttle weighing
about 20 tons -- was launched from a site near the Caspian Sea and
dropped by parachute into the Pacific, below the Equator, where a
seven-ship Russian fleet waited to recover it, the Times said.
   The test caught the United States  "off guard,"  the newspaper
said, because  "U.S. intelligence agencies expected the flight one day
later."
   But the United States did obtain some telemetry data and photos of
the craft, the Times said, which  "some Pentagon officials believe could
become the world's first fighter spacecraft."
   The prototype Soviet shuttle is far smaller than the 86-ton U.S.
shuttle craft, scheduled to complete a fourth mission Sunday.
   But U.S. officials believe it is big enough to carry five or six
persons to a space station and its successors could be used on  "purely
military missions, such as reconnaisance in space, command posts or as
weapons carriers,"  the Times said in a story from Washington.
    "These officials believe the Soviet shuttle could be used to
inspect U.S. or other nations satellites in orbit and, if equipped with
weapons, destroy them on command."
   The Times quoted an unnamed U.S. official as saying this would be
 "more of a political demonstration during this decade than an effective
weapon system ... but it could grow into an effective weapons
system in time."
   The Soviets have been testing, with mixed results, a
ground-launched anti-satellite system, using a rocket-launched warhead
designed to close in on a satellite in orbit and explode, shredding the
satellite with shrapnel.
   The United States has designed, but not tested, an anti-satellite
rocket that would be launched at high altitude from a jet fighter, soar
into orbit and ram the target.
   The current shuttle flight includes its first military use,
transportation of a device the Pentagon has refused to discuss, but
technical publications have described as sensors for early warning
satellites, designed to detect missile launches.

[Maybe the US should consider trade restrictions on Sears lawn
chairs to keep the Russians from building up a civilian
antisatellite defence force...TW]

------------------------------

Date:  3 Jul 1982 at 1716-CDT
From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 
Subject: Shuttle OMS and RCS
To: space at mit-mc

Does anyone know the specific impulse developed by the shuttle's OMS
and RCS engines, or where to find these figures?

		KJM

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 82 9:34:14-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!ralph at Berkeley
Subject: Here! HERE!

Here! Here! to uiucdcs!grunwald's comments.
There is nothing wrong with nationalistic pride, but let us not
put down the USSR.  They have done much since WWII, and there is
much we could learn from them.  Why don't we opt for the adage
"Know your enemy".  If we know them better we can learn from
them.  If we know them well enough, we can become friends.
It would be nice to replace all spy satellites and killer
satellites with comsats and weather satellites.
 ralph hill
 ...!decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!ralph

------------------------------

Date: 6 July 1982 16:25-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle Meets Garbage
To: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

If both the shuttle and the old booster were traveling at 17,000 MPH
in the same direction, their relative velocity would be zero and they
could safely bump aside each other without damage, in fact we could
grapple the booster with the canadarm and remove it from space. But
the way the message was presented here (SPACE) and on comercial
television made it sound like they were traveling in opposite
directions, giving 34,000 MPH relative velocity, where even a loose
dishrag could do considerable damage to a spaceship. But I consider
that very unlikely since the shuttle was orbited in an eastward
direction to take advantage of the Earth's rotation, just like most
other satelites. In fact I've never heard of anything being orbited in
a Westward direction. Polar orbits are possible, but the odds are
against the booster being in a polar orbit. Mostly likely is that the
booster and the shuttle were both going approximately the same
directon, with their velocity difference being (in magnitude) some
small fraction of their orbital velocity (like perhaps 170 MPH) which
would still be dangerous in the event of of a collision between
shuttle and booster but not as bad as the scare stories of 17,000 MPH
each seem to imply.

Does anybody know the correct relative velocity of this near-collision?

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 82 0:21:08-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!rabbit!jj at Berkeley
Subject: A Celestial?? Object--A request for ID

	This is a requst for ID of an object seen at 10PM EDT on
7/5/82.  The object was located at the following point:
Standing in Murray Hill, NJ, and facing exact south(that much I can do.)
the object was about 10 degrees south of overhead and about 15 degrees
east of overhead. It was bright, variable, and of a blue/violet shade that
varied/seemingly periodically.  There were no other bright objects near it, but
it seemed to have a motion toward the west/southwest.  (Let's say
10 degrees south of west, more or less).

The object caught my eye because of its variable nature.(Could be atmospheric,
but didn't seem that way) and it's seeming motion relative to stars/other bodies.

My observations were over about 10 minutes, and not very accurate, but it seemed
to move about 5 degrees in 10 minutes, which is a bit faster than
earth rotation, to put it mildly.

If there is a planet near there and it was mere atmospheric junk that
cought my eye, sorry.  Mail me.  
If it isn't a planet, any really convincing guesses will be summarized.

I haven't the least idea.

Mail me, don't clutter the net.

------------------------------

Date: 6 July 1982 19:05-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  shuttle/booster miss
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

I found the info I was requesting. The closing speed of the shuttle
and booster was 6,100 MPH. Since each craft was going 17,000 MPH, I
conclude they were both in roughly eastward orbits but at an angle of
roughly 20 degrees at the point of crossing.
The figure of "17,000 MPH each" that was blasted by the TV was
misleading without the closing speed also listed, but 6,100 MPH would
still have been catastrophic if they had collided.

------------------------------

Date:  6 Jul 1982 2327-PDT
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: Mailing-list for "List of lists" update notices
To:   All mailing-lists:
cc:   ZELLICH

For those of you not previously aware of it, I maintain a master list
of ARPANET mailing-lists/digests/discussion groups (currently 756
lines or ~29,000 characters) on OFFICE-3 in file:

   <ALMSA>INTEREST-GROUPS.TXT

   For ARPANET users, OFFICE-3 supports the net-standard ANONYMOUS
   login within FTP, with any password.

To keep people up to date on the large number of such lists, I have
established a mailing list for list-of-lists \update notices/.  I do
not propose to send copies of the list itself to the world at large,
but for those ARPANET users who seriously intend to FTP the updated
versions when updated, I will send a brief notice that a new version
is available.  For those counterparts at internet sites who maintain
or redistribute copies for their own networks (DECNet, Xerox, etc.)
and can't reach the master by ARPANET FTP, I will send out the
complete new file.  I do \not/ intend to send file copies to
individual users, either ARPANET or internet; our system is fairly
heavily loaded, and we can't afford it.

There is no particular pattern to the update frequency of INTEREST-
GROUPS.TXT; I will occasionally receive a burst of new mailing-lists
or perhaps a single change of address for a host or mailing-list
coordinator, and then have a long period with no changes.

To get on the list, send requests to ZELLICH@OFFICE-3, \not/ to the
mailing-list this message appears in.

Cheers,
Rich
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Jul-82  0301	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #234    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 234

Today's Topics:
			    Re: shuttle photos
		    Short Wave Fequencies for Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  7 Jul 1982 1218-EDT
From: J-MILLER at CMU-20C
Subject: Re: shuttle photos
To: space at MIT-MC

The address for Impact laser photo prints is:

Impact
125 Mason Circle, unit J
Concord, California 94520

They do have some really good shuttle photos. I think a catalog
costs $2.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 82 2:16:58-PDT (Sun)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!fortune!kiessig at Berkeley
Subject: Short Wave Fequencies for Shuttle
Article-I.D.: fortune.98
Via:  news.usenet; 8 Jul 82 2:29-PDT

	I heard recently that in addition to the shuttle's communications
being available via that 900 number, that they can also be heard on certain
short-wave frequencies.  Does anyone know WHICH frequencies?

Rick

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #235    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 235

Today's Topics:
			   ephemerides programs
			Anybody heard of S.S.I. ?
			     STS-4 Questions
			       lawn chairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 82 11:14:34-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!ihps3!ihuxl!rjnoe at Berkeley
Subject: ephemerides programs

Does anyone know where I can get an algorithm (and/or code) for calculating
ephemerides (tables of the apparent positions of the planets and the moon)?
While I understand most of the basic underlying astrodynamic principles, I
know there are some programs in use which are plenty accurate for my uses
and I do not want to bother developing a program which already exists.
Please respond to
                                         ihuxl!rjnoe
                                         Roger Noe

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 82 12:35:30-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!houxi!u1100a!rick at Berkeley
Subject: Anybody heard of S.S.I. ?

I have a letter requesting funds from a group calling themselves Space
Studies Institute.  They are based in Princeton, NJ.  Their letter
comes with an endorsement by Isaac Asimov stating that "S.S.I. is the
major organization working to make space manufacturing and space
colonies possible".  

My question is this:
Does anybody know anything about them?  Do they deserve anything more
than to have their letters thrown out with the dirty diapers?
I have thought seriously about sending money to the L5 Society, because
I have heard of them and I know that they are doing useful stuff.  But
I have never heard of S.S.I.

Please reply by mail.
			Thanks,
			Rick Thomas
			houxi!u1100a!rick

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 82 1:06:19-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!houxi!houca!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!ralph at Berkeley
Subject: STS-4 Questions

	Columbia and crew did it once again!!!! Great!!!!!
However, was it just  my imagination or was the network news coverage
poorer this time around? I'm not only referring to the landing but
it seemed to me that I could find very little information about the 
flight on either the morning or evening news.
	Question two, has anybody read the report the President was
talking about at the landing? Is there anything really meaningful in
that report? I heard a lot of words with the right sounds to them
but he could have picked them up by reading one L-5 News or the
jacket to the High Frontier. He seemed to stop short of making any
commitment. So, what is the story, is he going to back a sound
space program or our we being given the shaft again?

	It sure was nice seeing three shuttles together in one
place. Made Edwards look like a for real space port.
				REACH FOR THE STARS
				Fred-
                            BTL Indianapolis

------------------------------

Date: 9 July 1982 01:54-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  lawn chairs
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

The suggestion of restricting export of lawn chairs to USSR because
they might be used in anti-satellite warfare, is absurd. A lawn chair
has many uses, including lounging out in the pateo or on the lawn.
It's a general-purpose device like a CPU chip that can be used for
both military and non-military purposes (mostly the latter). Hey you
all, let's stop trying to restrict trade of general-purpose devices, ok?
Restrict weapons, not lawn chairs!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Jul-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #236    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 236

Today's Topics:
			     Re: lawn chairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 82 11:08:18-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!houxe!houxi!hou5d!elr at Berkeley
Subject: Re: lawn chairs
Article-I.D.: hou5d.114
Via:  news.usenet; 9 Jul 82 19:35-PDT

References: sri-unix.2043

	While I agree that the suggestion of restricting export of
lawn chairs to the USSR for their use in anti-satellite warfare is
absurd; they still could be used as weapons.  For instance; they
could convert them to the deadly beach chair and use them to line
their coast.  So when our troops storm their beach they will trip
on the chairs, sprain their ankles, and be sitting ducks for the
Russian Lifeguards to take them hostage.
	Another military application for these lawn chairs is
to place them under a shade tree at the front line with the
country you are battling with.  The tired enemy troops (us) will see
them and sit down to rest.  Almost immediately they will fall through
the weavings becoming hopelessly stuck and taken prisoner.
	Therefore we should all write our congress-creatures
and get them to pass legislation restricting the sale of lawn
chairs to the USSR for national security reasons.

						Elliot Rappaport
						BTL - Holmdel

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #237    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 237

Today's Topics:
			  unauthorized vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 82 12:10:24-PDT (Sat)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!lute at Berkeley
Subject: unauthorized vehicles
Article-I.D.: mhuxh.1016
Via:  news.usenet; 10 Jul 82 23:15-PDT


I heard this a couple of nights ago on NBC's Nightly News.

As many of you know, the fellow that took that lawn chair on a ride to see
the Columbia's touchdown had the bare minimum of equipment for such a ride.
He had:  several dozen weather balloons, a lawn cahir(as a cockpit), several
one-gallon jerry jugs filled with water for ballast, two pairs of glasses
(in case he lost a pair, which he did), a BB gun to blast balloons for
descent and a CB radio to keep in contact with his girlfriend on the ground.

Well, he didn't make it to the Shuttle landing area, but he did reach an
altitude of 16,000 feet.  In so doing, he scared the daylights out of
the pilots of two seperate commercial aircraft that spotted him while they
were flying their normal routes!

As it turns out, although this guy landed safely and is now preparing to
become a rich man from selling the story rights about his joyride, the FAA
has stepped in, presenting the man with criminal charges.  The charges
are (or is I should say): 

FLYING AN UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLE IN A CONTROLLED AIRSPACE.

This is probably the first time in the history of aviation that a lawn
chair has been considered an unauthorized vehicle!


					Jim Collymore
					mhuxh!lute

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #238    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 238

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Lawn Chairs in Controlled Airspace
			     Brazil in Space
			 Do you believe this?    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     11 July 1982 2155-edt
From:     C. D. Tavares              <Tavares at MIT-MULTICS>
Subject:  Re: Lawn Chairs in Controlled Airspace
To:       Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

Actually, it won't be the lawn chair that's considered  the "vehicle",
but the weather balloons.  The relevant chapter concerns manned and
unmanned kites, balloons, and rockets.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 1982 2325-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Brazil in Space
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: arms-d at MIT-MC

That nation has announced that they will try to put a man in space
on their own by the end of the decade.  Since we plan on providing
space for spacers of most other nationalities on the shuttle, their
promise that the technology will be "used for peaceful purposes
only" does not ring true with me.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1982 0027-PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG at SU-AI>
Subject: Do you believe this?    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

n511  2257  11 Jul 82
BC-SAUCER-07-12
    EDITORS: The following is from the London Telegraph and is for use
only in the United States and Canada.
     By David Brown
     Daily Telegraph, London (Field News Service)
     LONDON - British Rail, beleaguered by more earthly problems, has
abandoned a bizarre project to build the world's first flying saucer.
    A patent for the disc-shaped, nuclear-powered spacecraft was taken
out nine years ago but the idea has been quietly shelved in the
struggle to sustain Britain's nationalized rail transit system.
    The saucer was designed by the British Rail research and development
staff, which visualized a saucer-shaped vehicle capable of carrying
22 passengers into space at speeds far in excess of existing
aircraft. But British Rail could not afford the development costs,
which would have run into billions of dollars.
    Specifications and drawings for the patent, number 1310990, now lie
gathering dust in the Patent Office in London.
    No prototype of the spacecraft as built and not even a scale model
exists.
    Plans show a disc-shaped vehicle about 120 feet in diameter, powered
by a nuclear reactor and a series of laser beams. It would have been
propelled by highly charged particles of energy deflected around and
below the craft by an array of electro-magnets.
    Its capacity for acceleration and sustained high speeds would have
been so great that it was hoped artificial gravity would be created
inside the spaceship to eliminate the problems of weightlessness for
passengers.
    According to British Rail, the project was a spin off from existing
research work at Derby, where research is being done on lasers and on
high-speed trains in the 1960s.
    END
    
nyt-07-12-82 0157edt
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #239    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 239

Today's Topics:
			  Robins Air Force Base
			     Brazil in Space
			  Brazil's Space Program
			   Re: Brazil in Space
		       lawn chairs & flying saucers
			      Dial-A-Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 82 23:10:56-PDT (Sun)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Robins Air Force Base

Robins AFB is going to start playing a part in the shuttle
system.  It will maintain computers that enable military
systems around the world to communicate with each other.
Nine of the eighteen satellites that will make up its Navstar
Global Positioning System will be placed in orbit by the
shuttle with seven to be launched aboard Delta F boosters.

------------------------------

Date: 12 July 1982 09:09-EDT
From: Gail Zacharias <GZ at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Brazil in Space
To: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE
cc: ARMS-D at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: 11 Jul 1982 2325-PDT
    From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
    To: space at MIT-MC
    cc: arms-d at MIT-MC

    That nation has announced that they will try to put a man in space
    on their own by the end of the decade.  Since we plan on providing
    space for spacers of most other nationalities on the shuttle, their
    promise that the technology will be "used for peaceful purposes
    only" does not ring true with me.

Indeed, why would they conceivably want to do something on their own if they
can be dependent on us instead!

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1982 1156-EDT
From: David C. Feldmeier <DCF at MIT-XX>
Subject: Brazil's Space Program
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: dcf at MIT-XX

     My uncle used to live in Brazil and he would be in the US a few days every
other month.  On these occasions we talked about Brazil.  Brazil is a military
dictatorship run by the army (my uncle, once as a 'guest of the army' got 
priority on an air force transport over two air force officers!).  Brazil is
also fairly technologically advanced and has a 500% import tax on most items
to encourage you to buy Brazilian.  They manufacture almost anything.  The have
been engaged in a peace-time rocketry program for a few years.  Also they happen
to be engaged in peaceful nuclear research with Argentina last I heard.  They
need power, but their hydroelectric capacity is incredable and they hardly need
nuclear power.  With the high level of technology, research into nuclear power
(supposedly capable of atomic weapons by the 1990's) and now this rocketry 
program, it's not hard to guess what they might be up to.

                                                          Dave.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1982 1728-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Re: Brazil in Space
To: GZ at MIT-MC
cc: ARMS-D at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC

Subject:  Brazil in Space

	From: Gail Zacharias <GZ at MIT-MC>
	Indeed, why would they conceivably want to do something on
	their own if they can be dependent on us instead!

Indeed, why would they?  For commercial transport they should depend
upon us (or rather hopefully US companies) just as people do for most
high tech services.  The only real justification for having an
independent capability, especially one developed at a cost of billions
of dollars, thousands of man-years of scarce scientists and engineers,
and decades behind other nations, is for military reasons (national
pride does NOT justify such a fantastic outlay - a smaller one
dedicated to joint missions with the US or the USSR is another matter
of course).  In particular such technology can be used for ICBM
development.  Given that Brazil is ruled byy a military government, I
really doubt they are going to expend all those resources and expect
no new militaryy capabilities in return.

Jim

PS note that the same can be said of the US auto and steel industries,
although here at least we make no bones that a major reason for having
such large domestic capacity is to supply the military in times of
crisis.  I object to Brazil's blatant falsehoods about "peaceful" uses
of space (along with India's about "peaceful" atomic "devices"), since
misinformation is something that should be reduced whenever possible.

------------------------------

Date:  12 July 1982 23:49 cdt
From:  VaughanW at HI-Multics (Bill Vaughan)
Subject:  lawn chairs & flying saucers
Sender:  VaughanW.REFLECS at HI-Multics
To:  space at MIT-MC

not all lawn chairs should be forbidden export licenses to the
Soviet bloc -- only those high-technology lawn chairs which the
Russians can't make themselves.  Of course, we should immediately
consider exporting our most sophisticated lawn chairs to Israel,
so they can be tested under real battle conditions.

	-----     -----     -----

on a more serious note, the british railways flying saucer sounds
a lot like the magnetohydrodynamic (mhd) flying saucer that was
discussed some years back in a fact article in analog science
fiction magazine.  the article was later reprinted with other fact
articles in something called (i think) the analog reader.  i
remember almost nothing about it, but the author was quite
serious.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 82 0:15:43-PDT (Sun)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley
Subject: Dial-A-Shuttle

According to AT&T, more than a million calls were made to the special
"dial-a-shuttle" number during STS-4.  The busiest time was during
landing, with over 8000 calls in the final nine minutes of the flight.
This was the first time the number was publicly available, though
journalists (and readers of this list....) had access to the line during
the first three flights.  NASA says that some callers were disappointed
by the paucity of communications between the astronauts and Houston.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #240    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 240

Today's Topics:
			     Europe in Space
			      Dial-A-Shuttle
			      High Frontier
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 1982 0933-EDT
From: David C. Feldmeier <DCF at MIT-XX>
Subject: Europe in Space
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: dcf at MIT-XX

     Perhaps pride is enough reason to embark on a space program, or certainly
profits.  Look at the European Ariane for example.  I find it hard to believe
that Europe is looking for military space capability.  As for profits, the 
vehicle was designed as an inexpensive way to orbit payloads (and compete for
business with the shuttle).  This week's "Aviation Week & Space Technology"
has an article "Europe Considers Future Manned Role in Space".  In this article
is mentioned ideas for a European manned orbital vehicle, including France's
Hermes (a small winged vehicle).  It seems to me that with joint Soviet missions
and Spacelab missions with the US that the only reason to do it yourself is
patriotism.  It will be interesting to see whether Brazil ever launches a manned
space vehicle...

                                                 Dave.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 82 13:28:10 EDT
From: cobb at NBS-VMS
Subject: Dial-A-Shuttle

   The reason you don't hear all that much on the Dial-A-Shuttle
number is that Houston and the Shuttle can only talk to one another
when the shuttle is over a ground station, which doesn't happen all that
often.  The Shuttle is in such a low orbit that the horizon is only
a few hundred miles, and it's moving so fast that it covers that
distance fairly quickly.  Twenty minutes talking to the same ground
station is a long pass.  You have to know when the shuttle is over
a ground station in order to get anything out of the phone number
besides the recording.  Unfortunately, the ground stations are pretty
randomly scattered, and the shuttle doesn't cover the same ones on
successive orbits because the Earth rotates under it.  In order to
predict ground station passes, you need either:
   - a fairly sophisticated orbital trajectory program, or
   - a copy of NASA's flight plan, which has (among other goodies) a
map of the shuttle's ground track, including markers indicating which
ground stations are in communication with the shuttle at what times.
Once you correct for the difference between planned and actual liftoff
times, the map is very accurate.  The flight plan is included in the
Shuttle Mission Press Kit (at least it was in the one for STS-3), so
pester your friendly neighborhood newspaperman.

   Second topic:  The article I read said that AT&T had collected
$1.2 million dollars on that number during the last mission.  That's
not peanuts!  That's quite a few percent of the cost of the mission.
What are the chances of NASA collecting some royalties here?  After all,
they're \providing/ the signal; Ma Bell is just moving it around.

  Even if NASA can't get any of the money directly, that sure shows
that there's a helluva lot of popular support out there for the space
program.  Probably more than most congressmen realize...

				Stewart

PS - Does anyone have a program for calculating ground tracks/ground
station coverage?  Can anyone provide pointers to the appropriate
algorithms?  (Supposedly they fly an HP-41 calculator on the Shuttle
that's programmed to display upcoming ground stations, so it can't
be that hard.)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 1982 1342-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: High Frontier
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The July 14 issue of ELECTRONICS magazine has a Washington Commentary
(pg. 70) on the Reagan space policy and Project High Frontier.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #241    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 241

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Brazil in Space
			  Shuttle Communications
			     Europe vs Brazil
			   Re: Brazil in Space
			 Supersonic flight, X-20
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 1982 12:52 EDT
From: PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Brazil in Space
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 13 Jul 1982 0302-PDT
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
c:  PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MARX

Although I agree with Jim McGrath on the point that the Brazilian Government
is likely to get military benefit from their space program, I must also support Gail
Zacharias' point (Space Digest V2 #239).  We (the good old USA) have once
again proved how well our friend in South America can count on us, I.E. the
Falklands' War.

Richard

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 82 14:56:49 EDT
From: cobb at NBS-VMS
Subject: Shuttle Communications

   (I tried the number during STS-3 but not during the last mission,
so my info may not be current.)
   NASA doesn't include the ground station schedule because they
only update the tape every 4 to 6 hours.  That's two or three orbits!
A list of ground stations for that far in advance would double or
triple the length of the recording, and it wouldn't be all that
useful (try picking the useful information out of several minutes
of phrases like "Goldstone at twenty-oh-eight for six minutes").
   To the best of my knowledge, NASA doesn't broadcast the "900
number" signal on shortwave radio (although they should -- it couldn't
cost much, and they'd be reaching mostly technologists, who are their
biggest supporters), so I assume you're talking about picking up
the signals direct from the shuttle and Houston.  The same problems
that ground stations have also apply here, and in spades.  You can
only hear the shuttle when it's over you, which isn't often.  The
ground track of the shuttle doesn't cover all that much of the USA
(we're too far north).  Also, I seem to remember that the frequencies
NASA uses to talk to the shuttle are up around 2Ghz.  Common ham radio gear
only goes up to about 450Mhz.  So you're talking about buying or
building an expensive piece of gear, waiting for the precise moment
when the shuttle's overhead (repeat query: you need a program for
that -- anobody got one?), and then listening to a couple of minutes
of conversation before the shuttle moves out of range (that's assuming
there's a ground station close enough to your location that NASA's
talking while you can hear), and only being able to do even THAT just
a couple of times a day.  It's not as simple as just tuning in the
dial.  That's why they have the 900 number.
   However, if you do manage to call the number when Houston and the
shuttle are on, you can find out the right time to call back when they
go off.  The key words here are LOS (Loss Of Signal) and AOS (Acquisition
Of Signal).  There's always a thirty-second warning before LOS, after
which they generally say something like "Okay, see you at Dakar in
twenty-one minutes".  If they mention the next AOS, that means the
same thing.
   You're right, there should be a cheap (free) way to find out what's
going on on the shuttle.  But AT&T isn't charging exorbitantly for
their circuits -- 35 cents a minute is close to the standard long-
distance rate.  Broadcasting is always cheaper than point-to-point.
What NASA really should do is put their signal on one of the ham bands
used by stations like Voice of America and Radio Whatever (hey! why
not put the shuttle right next to Radio Moscow?).  It might help to
include a ground-station schedule in the 900-number recording, but it
probably wouldn't help all that much.  Remember, the format of that
number was designed for journalists, not the general public.
   Maybe when direct broadcast satellite TV gets started, NASA could
give themselves a channel...
				Stewart

PS - Speaking of satellites, it will only be a couple of years before
we no longer have to worry about ground station coverage.  NASA will
soon be launching a set of geosynchronous satellites called TDRSS
(Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System, I think).  The shuttle
talks to whichever TDRSS it can see, and that one relays to the one
over Goddard, and Goddard relays between its TDRSS and Houston.  No
more ground-station windows.  Godspeed TDRSS! -SC

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 1982 1150-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Europe vs Brazil
To: space at MIT-MC

Actually, European civilian space developments ARE used for military
purposes, just like NASA advances are used by our military.  However,
Europe is quite different from Brazil in that the former has a large
economic and technological surplus.  Brazil has enough to do feeding
its people and developing their own resources.  Europe need not worry
about such basics (at least northern Europe), so can afford to invest
in space.

This case appears identical to India's drive for a "peaceful" nuclear
"device."  Sure there is an element of national pride involved -
but I cannot believe that the direct military uses of the technology are
not uppermost in their minds.


Jim

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 1982 16:49 EDT
From: PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Brazil in Space
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 13 Jul 1982 0302-PDT
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
c:  PATTERSON.Henr

Although I agree with Jim McGrath on the point that the Brazilian Government
is likely to get military benefit from their space program, I must also support Gail
Zacharias' point (Space Digest V2 #239).  We (the good old USA) have once
again proved how well our friend in South America can count on us, I.E. the
Falklands' War.

Richard

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 1982 1701-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Supersonic flight, X-20
To: space at MIT-MC

These discussions of the X-20 and other rocket launched gliders reminds
me of this bit of trivia:

Q: What was the first winged vehicle to fly faster than sound, and when
did it fly?

If you say the X-1, you're wrong.  The X-1 was the first *manned* winged
vehicle to fly faster than sound.  The first unmanned vehicle was a glider
launched by the Germans on a V-2 in January 1945.  It glided at Mach 4.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Jul-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #243    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 243

Today's Topics:
			   eclipse info wanted
			 Columbia to go Back Home
			     Brazil in Space
				 Sunspots
		 Re: Crippling the Russian economy - (nf)
		   Getaway Special Info Request - (nf)
			 Re: British Rail Saucer
			    Re: Dial-A-Shuttle
			       shuttle comm
			     Columbia at KSC
		      Crippling the Russian economy
			Robot to Get SRB Recorders
			    Columbia Piggyback
			   Re: meteor sighting
		    Ghost Satellites in the Sky...???
			     getaway specials
			      Space Station
			Already Ahead of Schedule
				  TDRSS
			New Application for Space
			  Brazil in space, etc.
		    Re: Crippling the Russian Economy
			 Orbit tracking programs
			Re: copper emission lines
			       Re: Sunspots
		       Photographing Lunar Eclipse
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 242

Today's Topics:
			   eclipse info wanted
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 82 11:49:23-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray at Berkeley
Subject: eclipse info wanted
	
	I have lost the times for the eclipse at the end of this month.
Could someone who still has it sent it to me. I was under cloud cover for the
one on July 5th.   
					murray at intelqa  

 15-Jul-82  0433	menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.piner@BerkSubject: Meteor Query 	Meteor Query 
Date: 13 Jul 82 0:29:30-PDT (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.piner@BerkSubject: Meteor Query
Subject: Meteor Query

Early this morning I observed a rather common event from
a rather uncommon distance. While driving from Lafayette 
to Muncie, Indiana, I saw a meteor and it was very close.
My best estimate is that it struck the earth less than five
miles from my car. It is unusual to see one that close,
and it is also unusual to see one for several seconds.
Meteors usually pass high over head and are visible for
only a fraction of a second. This one was very low in the
sky and moving relatively slowly. 
   When I first saw it, I thought it was a left over rocket
from the fourth of July. It took me a while to realize what it
was. The colors were unlike any meteor I have ever seen before.
Usually a meteor leaves a bright red or orange trail. This one
left a trail of green, blue, orange, yellow, and red. The 
colors were very bright. The trail was very distinct. It was
so close, I could see parts of it coming off as it fell.
   This brings me to my question. Was this indeed a meteor,
or was it space junk? My astronomy is a little weak, but I
thought meteorites were mostly iron, and sometimes carbon, and
very little else. These elements never glow green! Copper will,
when burned in air, make a green flame. Other elements will
make other colors. This is how they make those pretty rockets
for the Fourth in fact. Does anyone know if a meteor can make 
such unusual colors or does this mean what I saw had to be
space junk? Any comments?
				Richard Piner
				Physics, Purdue

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 82 20:38:42-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!alice!sjb
       at Berkeley
Subject: Columbia to go Back Home

The Columbia will fly back to KSC tomorrow, beginning at 0800 EDT,
when it will take off from EAFB aboard a 747.  There, it will be
refurbished for STS-5, now moved up to a tentative launch date of
29 October.  Challenger is already at KSC, and its electrical
systems were turned on for the first time today as engineers tested
things out.

------------------------------

Date: 15 July 1982  20:10-EDT (Thursday)
Sender: FEINBERG at MIT-OZ
From: Chiron <FEINBERG at MIT-AI>
To: PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MAXC
Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: Brazil in Space

Howdy!
    Date: 14 Jul 1982 12:52 EDT
    From: PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MAXC
    Re:   Brazil in Space


    Although I agree with Jim McGrath on the point that the Brazilian
    Government is likely to get military benefit from their space
    program, I must also support Gail Zacharias' point (Space Digest
    V2 #239).  We (the good old USA) have once again proved how well
    our friend in South America can count on us, I.E. the Falklands' War.

    Richard

I really don't think the Argentines should have counted on us during
the Falklands' War.  Clearly these people were the aggressors in this
action, and I think the US was rather restrained in its actions.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 1982 2012-EDT
From: USCHOLD at RUTGERS
Subject: Sunspots
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: uschold at RUTGERS

I heard once long ago that sunspots are visible with the naked eye in the
right conditions.  Right now I'm looking out my window and wondering if I'm
seeing one.  Sun is dim orange, allowing me to stare right at it, (oh how
I wish I had binoculars...

Description of spot:

Time:  7:55 pm. 
Place: Piscataway N.J;  
Dist above horizon: 1.5-2 inches at arm's length (or 6-10 sun diameters)

  Relatively long black "slit" in lower right quadrant near center.
The slit starts almost at center and starts to split that quadrant
into two octants.  It's not long enough, of course, (approx 1/5 of a
sun radii) and it's curved downwards slightly and more 'black' near
the center.

Can anyone out there verify this sighting?  Is there a huge sunspot "going on"
at this time.  (Yes, I cleaned my glasses and opened the window as a first
check...)

Thanx,  Mike

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 82 18:27:21-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!grunwald at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Crippling the Russian economy - (nf)

Right, that'll let us get back to abusing innoncent customers, raping the land
with no thought of preservation and all those other things that made american
buisness so strong.

No thanks, I think I rather have a clean environment and products which are
actually safe and designed to work well. I'm sure that the Soviets would
appreciate such things, since they have a lot of pollution caused by their
attempts to match western industrial might.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 82 19:40:34-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!pugas at Berkeley
Subject: Getaway Special Info Request - (nf)

Does anyone know why the Getaway Special is having problems?
We are keenly interested in any details anyone can pick up.

		Purdue University GetAway Special
		{decvax,harpo,ihnss,ucbvax}!pur-ee!pugas

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 82 11:07:02-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Berkeley
Subject: Re: British Rail Saucer

        It might be instructive to actually see the patent papers concerning
this machine.  I know that such things may be obtained from the US patent 
office (if you know the patent number), but how does one go about this with
a British patent?  Several years ago, I tryed to get the address of the British
patent office from the British embassy in Washington, but they never returned
my letter.  Perhaps some of the Canadians on the net might know what to do.
This info might be quite useful to many on this net (and on others, too!), so
the procedure ought to be posted to this net and any other that might use it.
Thanx in advance.


                           els [Eric Strobel]
                           pur-ee!physics:els

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 82 13:23:47-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!mhuxm!pyuxjj!pyuxl!cook
       at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Dial-A-Shuttle

What is (was) the actual Dial-a-Shuttle number and how can I find out
what it will be for the next mission?  Is it available across the US?
Mike Cook, BTL PY

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 1982 2234-PDT
From: Barry Megdal <BARRY at CIT-20>
Subject: shuttle comm
To: space at MIT-MC

The communication between the shuttle and ground stations is actually
done both at 2 Ghz and at 296.8 Mhz, the latter frequency being in the
UHF military aircraft band.  A number of surplus receivers are available
for that band, the most common being the URR-13 or URR-35.  Using one of these
with a small specially made ground plane on the roof of my house I was able
to copy the communications on every pass of STS-2 over Southern California.
A typical day in the mission had more than 5 listenable passes.  Of course
all of that effort was made somewhat useless by the fact that the JPL
amateur radio club was broadcasting communications w/ all of the ground
stations over local 2 meter amateur repeaters....

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 82 14:08:11-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Columbia at KSC
Article-I.D.: alice.789
Via:  news.usenet; 15 Jul 82 22:24-PDT

The Columbia landed at KSC today at 1033 EDT.  It will be
detached from its jumbo jet and taken to the Orbiter
Processing Facility, where it will sit aside the Challenger
for about eight weeks, as both are prepared for space
flight simultaneously.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 82 22:40:34-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley
Subject: Crippling the Russian economy
Article-I.D.: watmath.3000
Via:  news.usenet; 15 Jul 82 23:18-PDT

	If we're really interested in crippling Tsar Leonid's economy, why
don't we just ship him Nader, Fonda et. al.?  They seem to have done wonders
for ours...
						Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 82 7:46:17-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Robot to Get SRB Recorders
Article-I.D.: alice.784
Via:  news.usenet; 15 Jul 82 23:21-PDT

A robot called SCARAB, for Submersible Craft Assisting Repair
and Burial will be sent out from Baltimore today to the UTC
Freedom off the coast of Cape Canaveral to help in the recovery
of the recorder aboard one of the Columbia's sunken SRB's.  It
will arrive Thursday or Friday.  From there, it will be sent
down and commanded from the ship to pick up the recorder, like
a plane's black box, and bring it back.  NASA hopes the recorder
will help determine the exact cause od the sinking of the boosters.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 82 7:26:00-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Columbia Piggyback
Article-I.D.: alice.786
Via:  news.usenet; 15 Jul 82 23:32-PDT

The Columbia may make its last piggyback trip to KSC today.
NASA may allow the ship to land on the concrete runway at
KSC for STS-5 because they got some good data during this
landing, the first on a concrete runway.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 82 10:07:03-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Berkeley
Subject: Re: meteor sighting
Article-I.D.: eagle.420
Via:  news.usenet; 15 Jul 82 23:38-PDT

In response to Richard Piner's uncommon meteor sighting, I
think it's very likely that he identified some reentering
space junk.  A number of years ago, I had the good fortune to
observe a similar occurance while in western Pennsylvania.
The object was a brilliant blue-green - an unmistakable set
of copper emission lines...  It trailed orange and red
"sparks", but did not appear to fragment.  This object was
bright enough to illuminate some scattered clouds (at night).
The trajectory was nearly horizontal, taking about five
seconds from first appearance until it disappeared.  I
know of no natural meteors with a spectrum such as the one I
saw.  I assume that this was space junk.

In closing, it might be interesting to note the particulars of
such sightings (time/date, direction).  There might be a chance
that it could be identified.  Perhaps the data could be obtained
from NORAD...

                            Steve Robinson
                            Environmental Medicine, NYU

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 82 16:24:03-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!ihps3!ihuxl!ignatz at Berkeley
Subject: Ghost Satellites in the Sky...???
Article-I.D.: ihuxl.217
Via:  news.usenet; 15 Jul 82 23:46-PDT

I've got an interesting sighting, and wonder if anyone could help me out...

A few weeks ago, I went on a canoe trip in the Great White--er, Green-- North.
Specifically, we were in the southern section of Quetico Provincial Park, at
48 degrees, 12' 28" North by 91 degrees, 08' 40" West (Give or take a few
seconds). We had just finished dinner at this campsite when we sighted
two objects travelling Northwest to Southeast with a *high* apparent velocity.
They followed parallel paths, separated by approx. 10 degrees; had an apparent
brightness on the order of, or somewhat greater than, say, Saturn; and appeared
to have an azimuth of 75-80 degrees normal to their flight path. This was
on June 14th at some time between 10:10 and 11:00 PM Central Daylight Savings
Time.

What were they? The suggestions offered at the time was that they might be
surveillance satellites, since the Falklands thing was (we assumed) in full
swing.

Mail to me directly; I will forward responses to interested parties, and onto
the net if I get a) answers and b) enough requests.

				Thanks!

				Dave Ihnat
				..!ihuxl!ignatz

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 82 23:38:48-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!allegra!phr
       at Berkeley
Subject: getaway specials
Article-I.D.: allegra.424
Via:  news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 4:48-PDT

This has been on the net before, but in case any of you missed it:
There's a CBBS devoted to the Getaway Special program called GASnet
located in Maryland.  The 300 baud number is 301-344-9156.  It
was fairly stable over the past couple years; I haven't tried it
in several months but I assume it still works.

I'm not sure which problems pur-ee!pugas are referring to, but this
would probably be the best place to check or inquire.

Paul Rubin

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 82 7:25:22-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!alice!sjb
       at Berkeley
Subject: Space Station
Article-I.D.: alice.788
Via:  news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 4:55-PDT

NASA and the DoD are now putting together a plan to erect
a space station that would serve as a midway fueling stop
for the space shuttle and satellites carried by it.  The
space shuttle could dock at the facility, which would be
built in stages and manned by four people with a possibility
of 12 in the future, and satellites in its bay could be fueled
for a trip into higher orbits or even space.  Satellites would
also return to the station for later return to Earth.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 82 13:34:44-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!alice!sjb
       at Berkeley
Subject: Already Ahead of Schedule
Article-I.D.: alice.787
Via:  news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 5:00-PDT

The Columbia is already ahead of schedule for STS-5, leaving
four minutes before its planned departure time, 0800 EDT, from
EAFB this morning.

------------------------------

Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-ZOG received by CMU-10A at 16-Jul-82 10:56:41-EDT
Date: 16 Jul 1982 10:51:16-EDT
From: Bob.Zimmermann at CMU-ZOG at CMU-10A
Subject: TDRSS

Actually, TDRSS has been running for years and years.  The good folks at
a company called TRW have even won a Golden Fleece award for its
construction


		Robert A. Zimmermann

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 1982 1050-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: New Application for Space
To: space at MIT-MC

It occurs to me that experiments on magnetic monopoles may only be possible
in 0-g, if current theories are correct.  They predict monopoles with
very large masses (10^16 Gev) and unit magnetic charge.  The forces of
an atom on a monopole will be much smaller than the force of gravity,
so monopoles will fall out of any matter containing them.  Perhaps we
can find monopoles in the centers of asteroids?
-------

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 1982 at 1738-CDT
From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 
Subject: Brazil in space, etc.
To: space at mit-mc

  Would the reaction have been any different had Brazil (like Japan)
begun a space program based on U.S.-designed boosters built under
license?

  Will the first private company (whether foreign or private) to
announce a space-launcher venture be greeted by this same kind of
attitude?

				Ken Montgomery
-------

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 82 16:21:28-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!hao!woods at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Crippling the Russian Economy
Article-I.D.: hao.266
Via:  news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 23:20-PDT

  That Ralph Nader is harmful to our economy is

1) A matter of opinion, not fact, and
2) Not relevant to this newsgroup.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 82 23:29:02-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!eagle!karn
       at Berkeley
Subject: Orbit tracking programs
Article-I.D.: eagle.421
Via:  news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 23:28-PDT

The person who asked about orbit tracking programs for the shuttle
(cobb@nbs-vms) hit one of my favorite topics.  You asked for it!

I have been working off and on with various orbit tracking programs
for several years, primarily to track the amateur radio satellites
built by the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT) and the
USSR radio clubs.

The best general purpose orbit tracking program available for
free public use was originally written in BASIC by Dr. Thomas A.
Clark, W3IWI, president of AMSAT .  A listing of his program appears
in the AMSAT publication ORBIT magazine issue #6.  You can get a
copy of this issue by sending $2 to

	AMSAT
	PO Box 27
	Washington, DC 20044

(This address is also good for general inquiries about AMSAT and its
programs)

Tom's program has been translated into a number of dialects of
BASIC, PL/1, HP-41C, etc, and are available from

	Amsat Software Exchange (ASE)
	Box 338
	Ashmore, IL  61912

for small donations ($5-$15) to cover costs.

One of the guys running the ASE, Bob Diersing, N5AHD, runs a CBBS on
(512) 852-8194 where you can read some info about the available
programs and get Keplerian elements for a number of satellites.

Tom's article includes a very good discussion of the theory behind
his program, which is a general one handling elliptical
orbits as well as circular ones.  It uses the "Keplerian Element"
sets derived by the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD)
that are available free from NASA.  These numbers describe the size and
shape of the orbit and the orientation of the orbit plane at a
specified time (the epoch), as determined from optical and radar
observations.

There is another satellite tracking program available,
more comprehensive than the Clark program, in that it has a solar
ephemeris for checking observer and satellite illumination.  This is
very useful for finding passes in which the satellite is illuminated
and the observer is in darkness; under these conditions even a small
(2 foot) amateur radio satellite can be spotted with a pair of
binoculars.  Something as large as Skylab or the Shuttle is very
easy to spot if you know when and where to look.

It was written and is being sold by Sat Trak International in
Colorado Springs for about $80. I have taken their software
(originally in FORTRASH), and am converting it to a set of modular
subroutines in C for use both in tracking and for orbit determination
(deriving the Keplerian elements from transponder ranging measurements,
which AMSAT will need to do for Phase III-B). Since these program cost
money and belong to someone else, I can't place my versions in the public
domain, but it might be alright to give them to persons who have already
purchased the SatTrak software. (Sort of like paying your dues to
AT&T to get a Berkeley Unix tape).

During the last shuttle mission, I tracked down a set of elements
by phone (mail would have been too slow) through a public relations person
at Johnson Space Flight Center.  He had some trouble obtaining them,
mentioning that I was the only person to ask for them, but he was
quite helpful.  I later posted them to net.columbia after verifying
that they were reasonably accurate.  By looking up the locations of
the NASA tracking stations and running the tracking program with the
Keplerian elements, I could verify its accuracy with the 900 410-6272
number.  I found it very convenient to know when the shuttle was in
range before calling the Dial-It number.

I suspect that if there is enough demand for them during future
flights, they would be more readily available.

Unfortunately, the shuttle performs many maneuvering burns during a
flight.  For example, STS-4 increased its orbital altitude and
eccentricity 2 days after I got the Keplerian elements, throwing off
my predictions.

For those of you without computers (are there such people here?),
approximate predictions can be made with a Mercator map and an
acetate overlay.  The overlay must contain a sine wave with an
amplitude equal to the orbital inclination (28.5 degrees for STS-4,
larger for the earlier flights). The trace period is such that equator
crossings occur at the correct spacings, remembering that the earth is
rotating under the orbit, so that each equator crossing occurs
farther to the west.  On the Mercator map, draw "range circles"
around each tracking station, with the radius being given by

	r * acos(r/r+h)

where r = radius of the earth
      h = height of the satellite above earth surface (same units)

When the spacecraft enters a range circle, it is above that
station's horizon.

Note that the map methods for tracking satellites are workable only
when the orbits are reasonably circular.  Satellites in elliptical
orbits (e.g., the new Phase-IIIB spacecraft that will be launched in
January) follow weird S-shaped ground tracks; for these, a computer is
really the only practical answer.

On the topic of listening in, NASA uses a domestic satellite to
distribute a service called "NASCOM", which is how the networks get
their feeds.  I called the public relations departments at both the
Johnson and Goddard space flight centers and got two different
answers as to which satellite and transponder is used.  Since I am
not rich enough to have a home satellite TV receiver (spending my money
instead on ham satellite gear), I could not verify which is correct
(I was trying to get the info to get my local CATV company to carry it).
Anyway, maybe somebody with a dish can check these out:

Satcom I, Transponder 9 (JSC answer)
Satcom II, Transponder 13 (Goddard answer)

Rumor has it that unmanned launches (e.g., Delta) are also covered
on NASCOM. Neither of these was on Satcom III-R, so my local CATV company
couldn't carry it.

Hope this info helps.

Phil Karn, KA9Q/2
Bell Labs
Murray Hill, NJ

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 82 8:16:06-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.decvax!harpo!ihps3!ihuxv!lew
       at Berkeley
Subject: Re: copper emission lines
Article-I.D.: ihuxv.184
Via:  news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 23:29-PDT

Taken from: A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets, by Donald Menzel.

The colors of meteors range from reddish yellow to brilliant green.
The latter shade is due to the presence of magnesium (an abundant
constituent of many meteors), which glows green when heated to incandescence.

			Lew Mammel, Jr - BTL Indian Hill

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 82 7:31:48-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!alice!sjb
       at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Sunspots
Article-I.D.: alice.791
Via:  news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 23:40-PDT

Well, there is big solar flare activity going on this
week.  These (at least in part) cause sunspots to
occur...

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 82 2:34:07-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.piner at Berkeley
Subject: Photographing Lunar Eclipse
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.397
Via:  news.usenet; 17 Jul 82 0:33-PDT

I got back my photos of this months eclipse today, and from the
results can offer a little advise to anyone thinking of trying
to take pictures of the next one.
1) Live in a state with cleaner air than Indiana. The summer haze
   was much more of a problem than I had thought it would be.
2) It looks like a 400mm lens or longer is needed. My best guess
   is 1000mm would be "best". 
3) You will need an f stop of about 2 with ASA 400 film! With a
   1000mm lens this is going to cost a bundle! I found on close
   examination, that the stars had moved quite a bit during my
   4 sec. exposer. This blurred the lunar image. To hold exposer
   time down, you will need an f2 lens. This really is not very
   practical of course. The only real solution is a clock drive.
   If you have a clock drive, then a 4 sec. exposer at f4 is
   practical. In other words, to get a really good close shot,
   you will need a clock driven telescope with a camera attached.
4) If you want just a long shot, you can get by with a 200mm lens,
   with an f4 stop, 2 sec. exposer, and ASA 400 film. But this
   will not be a shot that can be blown up in an enlarger.

A final note, it sure was red. I got good color with Ektacrome.
All values here are approximate, the amount of haze, affects
both quantity and quality of the light from the moon. So take
several shots at different settings. If your camera has a timed
shutter release, use it to cut down vibrations, otherwise use
a cable shutter release.
					Richard Piner

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #244    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 244

Today's Topics:
			 Brazilian Space Program
			   Launched Pushed Back
			Re: Brazil in space, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 82 15:36:54-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!mhtsa!allegra!psuvax!simon at Berkeley
Subject: Brazilian Space Program
Article-I.D.: psuvax.1064
Via:  news.usenet; 17 Jul 82 9:36-PDT

Some of the 'facts' about Brazil given by David@sri-unix are wrong, some are only half true. Clarifications for those who are interested:
1) Brazil, at the moment, is  some items, mostly on luxuries likeAlthough the current president was elected in very indirect elections, where theopposing candidate could not have won, his oponent got a higher percentage of 
votes than any Mexican opposition candidate in recent history. More importantly,there is a formal comittment, and a high probability that the next presidential
elections will be free, direct elections. Meanwhile, there is freedom of the press, and free elections for local government, and for the two houses of Congress.2) There are large import surcharges ones of Congress.2) There are large import surcharg

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 82 20:07:21-PDT (Fri)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!alice!sjb
       at Berkeley
Subject: Launched Pushed Back
Article-I.D.: alice.792
Via:  news.usenet; 17 Jul 82 23:43-PDT

NASA now says that the target date for the launch of STS-5 is
now back to 11 November.  The change is not due to problems
with the shuttle, which came back in better shape than on
any previous mission, but to the two companies that are
furnishing satellites for launch.

The Columbia was demated from its 747 yesterday night and
was towed into the Orbiter Processing Facility today, where
it was parked next to the Challenger.

The deep sea robot SCARAB was lowered into the water today
in search of the recorder from one of the two SRB's that
sank after the launch of STS-4.  NASA has said that it will
not launch the shuttle again until it learns why they sank.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 82 6:57:22-PDT (Sat)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!pdh at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Brazil in space, etc.
Article-I.D.: hplabs.544
Via:  news.usenet; 17 Jul 82 23:46-PDT

The reaction to Brazil's announcing its space program was one of outrage,
primarily because Brazil (unlike Japan) is governed by the military.  I
suspect that those who, for the sake of pure thought, threw national ties
to the wind, and considered just the humanitarian aspect, were upset by
the Brazilian move, no matter whose boosters they are using.

					Peter Henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #245    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 245

Today's Topics:
		      Crippling the Russian economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sunday, 18 July 1982  15:14-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70
Cc: space at MIT-MC
Subject: Crippling the Russian economy

    	If we're really interested in crippling Tsar Leonid's economy, why
    don't we just ship him Nader, Fonda et. al.?  They seem to have done wonders
    for ours...

Hold on there!  Even as a joke, this isn't very funny, and definitely
INAPPROPRIATE as a submission for the Space bboard.  Why don't you
content yourself with letters to the editor of your local newspaper,
maybe supplemented with graffiti or something?  I'd like to tell you
what's wrong with your opinion, but that would just perpetuate
unfortunate political discussion on this bboard, and anyway you should
be able to figure it out yourself.

Jon

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #246    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 246

Today's Topics:
		      Re: eclipse info wanted (#243)
		  Re: Photographing Lunar Eclipse (#243)
			     Re: Meteor Query
			 SPACE Digest V2 #245    
		    Request for access to Mailing List
				Space Week
		       Good News for Comet Watchers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 1982 09:09 PDT
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: eclipse info wanted (#243)
In-reply-to: murray at Berkeley's message of 13 Jul 82 11:49:23-PDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

I suspect that you were thinking of the end-of-year eclipse, 
not end-of-month, so here are all eclipses for 1982:

January 9, Total Lunar, visible from eastern hemisphere and arctic.
January 25, Partial Solar, visible from New Zealand and Antarctica.
June 21, Partial Solar, visible from southern Africa.
July 6, Total Lunar, visible from North America, South America, Pacific.
July 20, Partial Solar, visible from western Europe, arctic, northeast Asia.
December 15, Partial Solar, visible from Europe, northeast Africa, western Asia.
December 30, Total Lunar, visible from North America, arctic, 
        Pacific.  Time (PST) 12:52 am to 6:05 am.  Middle 3:29.
        Totality lasts 61 minutes.  

Obviously this is a great year for lunar eclipses and a crummy one for 
solar (the quantities are roughly average, but the qualities are not).  

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 1982 09:18 PDT
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Photographing Lunar Eclipse (#243)
In-reply-to: piner at Berkeley's message of 16 Jul 82 2:34:07-PDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

A number of members of the astronomy club I belong to took lunar eclipse
pictures, with varying degrees of success, and in general, your findings were
substantiated.  That is, use a long focal length lens on an astronomical drive. 
However, a few spectacular shots were obtained with shorter lenses (on
astronomical drive) showing much milky way as a backdrop for a rather small
image of the eclipsed moon.  Also, some multiple exposures of the moon changing
"phases" were made with shorter lenses, some even without a drive (since they
were exposed for the bright side, using much shorter exposures).  

The exposure times you quote are only good for that eclipse.  Unfortunately,
each eclipse is a different brightness, depending on how close the moon is to the
center of the earth's shadow (this varies from eclipse to eclipse, and varies
during a given eclipse as it progresses) and how much junk (primarily clouds
and dust) there is in the earth's atmosphere to block light from refracting around
to the moon.  It varies A LOT -- factors of 100 or more -- from eclipse to
eclipse.  Conclusion: take lots of different exposures and some will come out.  

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 19-Jul-82  9:57:32 PDT (Monday)
From: Trigoboff at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Meteor Query
In-reply-to: Your message of 17 Jul 1982 0303-PDT
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

Sometime around 1970, I was standing outside in New York City.  For some
reason I looked up, and saw a brilliant turquoise light moving across the
sky.  Shooting out of the rear (defined by its direction of motion) of this
light was a stream of red-orange sparks, which left a smoke trail behind
the object as it moved across the sky.  After it had disappeared below the
horizon, I heard the sound of its passage following the same path it had
taken.

The next day, I read in the newspaper that a large meteor had come in down
the east coast, and had crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.

------------------------------

Date: 19 July 1982 13:30-EDT
From: Stewart Cobb <HSC at MIT-MC>
Subject:  SPACE Digest V2 #245    
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC

   Some current space happenings that probably won't make the news:

   - A company called Space Services, Inc. (not to be confused with
Gerry O'Neill's Space Studies Institute) is preparing to launch their
rocket on an island off the Texas coast.  The rocket is called
Percheron (after the draft horse) and is suborbital (you have to start
somewhere).  The company is totally privately funded.  They tried to
launch one last year, but it blew up in an engine test a couple of
weeks before the scheduled launch.  They're hoping for better luck
this year.  Way to go, private enterprise!

   - Last Friday afternoon, NASA launched the fourth LANDSAT.  It
contains a Multi-Spectral Scanner (MSS) like the others, but with the
addition of a new channel which sees blue.  They can now get
true-color images from LANDSAT, as well as the false-color infrared
ones.  LANDSAT-IV also contains a new instrument, the Thematic Mapper
(TM).  I don't know the details of this, but I vaguely remember that
it's something like the MSS.  I think it has better resolution
(50-meter vs. 200-meter squares) and a channel which sees thermal
infrared, as well as the near infrared channels of the MSS.

Stewart (cobb@nbs-vms)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 1982 1543-CDT
From: ELDER at GUNTER-ADAM
Subject: Request for access to Mailing List
To:   space at MIT-MC
cc:   elder

Please include ELDER@GUNTER-ADAM to the SPACE mailing list.  Thank you.

Greg Elder
-------

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 1982 0923-PDT
Sender: WARD at USC-ISIF
Subject: Space Week
From: Craig E. Ward <Ward at USC-ISIF>
To: BBoard at USC-ISIB
Cc: Ward at USC-ISIF
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF]15-Jul-82 09:23:40.WARD>
Redistributed-To: Space at MIT-MC, SF-Lovers at MIT-AI
Redistributed-By: WARD at USC-ISIF
Redistributed-Date: 19 Jul 1982

For those interested in the space program:

The California Museum of Science and Industry and the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics are sponsoring Space
Week July 17 - 25 to commemorate the anniversaries of the first
landing on the moon by Apollo 11 and the Viking I landing on
Mars.

Activities include:

July 17-25 Museum Theaters--NASA Space films will be screened
daily 12-4 pm.  The film "The Making of Star Wars" will also be
shown.

July 19 7:00pm OMNI Magazine will present "Careers in Space--Your
Guide to the Future".  This multi-media program will be hosted by
NASA consultant Stan Kent.

July 20 Anniversary Day luncheon featuring Dr.  Hans Mark, NASA
Deputy Director, and former astronaut Pete Conrad.  Call 670-6642
for more information.

July 17 Children's Space Program at the Kidspace Museum, 390 S.
El Molino, Pasadena, 449-9143

July 24 & 25 The museum will have special space and aircraft
displays, Moon Models, space pictures and movies.  Live
recreation of the Apollo moon walks will take place throughout
the day with astronauts in space suits, a replica of the Lunar
Lander and a simulated moonscape.

All events except the luncheon are free.  For more information
call (213) 744-7438.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 82 12:23:27-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!zeppo!wheps!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!mhuxm!pyuxjj!pyuxcc!djj
       at Berkeley
Subject: Good News for Comet Watchers
Article-I.D.: pyuxcc.311
Via:  news.usenet; 19 Jul 82 20:24-PDT


Summarized from the Newark Star Ledger 7/19/82 pg. 33

Astronomers await bright August comet
-------------------------------------

by Patrick Young -- Newhouse News Service

	Astronomers tracking a newly discovered comet as it hurtles
toward a late August sweep around the sun say it could be the
brightest comet in six years.  Based on early observations, Comet Austin
is expected to reach a fourth-magnitude brightness in early August
and remain at that level until about Aug. 20.

	Comet Austin is named after Rodney R. D. Austin, an amateur
astronomer in New Zealand who discovered it on June 18.  Currently, it is
about 102 million  miles out from the sun.  The only earth-based
telescopes that can see it now are in the Southern Hemisphere.  Early
calculations of its orbit suggest Comet Austin may be making its first pass
around the sun.

	The comet should make its closest approach to earth on Aug. 11,
passing within 28 million miles of the planet, and come within 59.5 million
miles of the sun of Aug. 24.  In the northern hemisphere, Comet Austin should
be visible just before sunrise beginning in early August.  It will
appear in the southeast sky near Sirius.

	The best viewing should come in the evenings at the end of twilight
beginning Aug. 12 or 13 and lasting about a week.  The comet will be
below the bowl of the Big Dipper in the northwest sky.

	The comet should appear bigger than a star.  It will be one
arc minute in size (moon is 30 arc minutes).  Comet Austin may be visible
with the naked eye, but binoculars are recommended.


Happy viewing,

Dave Johnson
BTL - Piscataway

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #247    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 247

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Sunspots (#243)
		      NASA audio/video via satellite
			     The August Comet
				Space walk
				Apollo Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 1982 10:55 PDT
From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Sunspots (#243)
In-reply-to: USCHOLD at RUTGERS's message of 15 Jul 1982 2012-EDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Lynn.es

A co-worker of mine enquired about a similar naked eye sunspot sighting June
15.  I verified that there were TWO sunspot groups (each group appears as a
single spot to the naked eye) visible to the naked eye on the next clear day
here, June 19, though one group was just barely visible.  The rotation period of
the sun is about 27 days at the place where the largest spot group was.  It
appears that the same group has come around again.  I checked it out yesterday
with solar filter, both naked eye and with binoculars.  The spot group is right
where you described it, but was just too faint for me to see it without
binoculars.  It has dissipated considerably since June.
  
Caution: If you try viewing the sun, even at sunset/sunrise when it is
considerably dimmed by our atmosphere, get a filter made for solar viewing;
otherwise you are risking eye damage.

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 1982 at 1820-CDT
From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 
Subject: NASA audio/video via satellite
To: space at mit-mc

  What is the minimum amount of equipment required to recieve the
signal from the comsat and then condition it so the TV set can
understand it? Can this equipment be built at home?

		Ken Montgomery

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 82 13:10:57-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Berkeley
Subject: The August Comet
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.402
Via:  news.usenet; 20 Jul 82 23:46-PDT



    Has anyone heard anything more specific, such as what the rough
parameters are?  If someone has this, I'm sure those of us with 
telescopes would like to have at least an approximate RA and Decl. to
point at, perhaps at weekly intervals.


                        els [Eric Strobel]
                        pur-ee!pur-phy!els

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 82 18:18:35-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: Space walk
Article-I.D.: alice.801
Via:  news.usenet; 21 Jul 82 0:14-PDT

Astronauts Vance Brand and Robert Overmyer will make the first
space walk from the space shuttle during STS-5, due to be
launched 11 November.  During their 3 hour walk, they will
float about the cargo bay and practice procedures that could
be used in 1984 to repair the Solar Maxim satellite that failed
due to a power mechanism breakdown.  NASA considers it a space
even though they will not leave the spacecraft because they will
be exposed to the vacuum of space.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 82 16:37:43-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!allegra!phr at Berkeley
Subject: Apollo Day
Article-I.D.: allegra.429
Via:  news.usenet; 21 Jul 82 0:23-PDT

Happy Apollo Day (20 July 1969) to all of you.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #248    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 248

Today's Topics:
			   Re: The Austin Comet
	    [Dick Koolish <koolish at BBN-UNIX>:~Comet Austin]
			 Comet Austin particulars
		       Second Most Memorable Fourth
			 Satcom I & II reception
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1982 0717-CDT
From: ELDER at GUNTER-ADAM
Subject: Re: The Austin Comet
To:   space at MIT-MC

Mail-from: ARPANET host BBNP rcvd at 14-Jul-82 1604-CDT
Date: 14 Jul 1982 16:46:42 EDT (Wednesday)
From: Dick Koolish <koolish at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Comet Austin
To: list/astro: at BBN-UNIX

The following is the predicted ephemeris for Comet Austin.  The
RA and Dec positions are for 0hr UT on the date given.


		Position at 0hr UT	        Position at nautical
						twilight.

date            RA              Dec             Az              Alt
----            --              ---             --              ---

Aug 15          9h 20.4m        +33d 18m
    17          9  54.5          37  55         316             8
    19         10  25.3          41  02
    21         10  52.0          42  59         312             19
    23         11  14.2          44  07
    25         11  32.4          44  41         310             23
    27         11  47.2          44  53
    29         11  59.1          44  50
    31         12  08.6          44  37         307             27
Sep  2         12  16.3          44  17
     4         12  22.5          43  52         307             27
     6         12  27.5          43  25

The comet will be an evening object.  It will be almost exactly northwest
(azimuth 315 degrees) after sunset.  It is estimated to be magnitude
4 on Aug 15, decreasing by .1 per day.


Here's some coordinates for the Austin comet.  I got the information from
the Astronomy mailing list.

Greg Elder
-------

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1982 1102-EDT
From: S. W. Galley <SWG at MIT-XX>
Subject: [Dick Koolish <koolish at BBN-UNIX>:~Comet Austin]
To: space at MIT-MC, decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at UCB-C70

Mail-from: ARPANET site BBNP rcvd at 14-Jul-82 1707-EDT
Date: 14 Jul 1982 16:46:42 EDT (Wednesday)
From: Dick Koolish <koolish at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Comet Austin
To: list/astro: at BBN-UNIX

The following is the predicted ephemeris for Comet Au-in.  The
RA and Dec positions are for 0hr UT on the date given.


		Position at 0hr UT	        Position at nautical
						twilight.

date            RA              Dec             Az              Alt
----            --              ---             --              ---

Aug 15          9h 20.4m        +33d 18m
    17          9  54.5          37  55     9(  316             8
    19         10  25.3          41  02
    21         10  52.0          42  59         312             19
    23         11  14.2          44  07
    25         11  32.4          44  41         310             23
    27         11  47.2          44  53
    29         11  59.1          44  50
    31         12  08.6          44  37      S 307             27
Sep  2         12  16.3          44  17
     4         12  22.5          43  52         307             27
     6         12  27.5          43  25

The cometmaill be an evening object.  It will be almost exactly northwest
(azimuth 315 degrees) after sunset.  It is estimated to be magnitude
4 on Aug 15, decreasing by .1 per day.


----p4-

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1982 08:50 PDT
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Comet Austin particulars
To: Space at MIT-MC
cc: Ciccarelli

[The following is a forwarded message from the Astronomy^.PA mailing list at
Xerox PARC]

/John Ciccarelli

---------------------------

Mail-from: Arpanet host BBNP rcvd at 14-JUL-82 1401-PDT
Date: 14 Jul 1982 16:46:42 EDT (Wednesday)
From: Dick Koolish <koolish at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Comet Austin
To: list/astro: at BBN-UNIX

The following is the predicted ephemeris for Comet Austin.  The
RA and Dec positions are for 0hr UT on the date given.


		Position at 0hr UT	        Position at nautical
						twilight.

date            RA              Dec             Az              Alt
----            --              ---             --              ---

Aug 15          9h 20.4m        +33d 18m
    17          9  54.5          37  55         316             8
    19         10  25.3          41  02
    21         10  52.0          42  59         312             19
    23         11  14.2          44  07
    25         11  32.4          44  41         310             23
    27         11  47.2          44  53
    29         11  59.1          44  50
    31         12  08.6          44  37         307             27
Sep  2         12  16.3          44  17
     4         12  22.5          43  52         307             27
     6         12  27.5          43  25

The comet will be an evening object.  It will be almost exactly northwest
(azimuth 315 degrees) after sunset.  It is estimated to be magnitude
4 on Aug 15, decreasing by .1 per day.



----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1982 14:49 PDT
From: Suk at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Second Most Memorable Fourth
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:  Suk

In 1982 I enjoyed the second-most-memorable Fourth of July of my life (second
only to 1976), when I journeyed to Edwards AFB to watch Columbia return.

The actual landing itself was only slightly more spectacular than previous (I'd
seen STS-2 land), because we saw smoke from the tires this time instead of
blowing sand.  We were all closer to the actual touchdown this time too.

However, the actual highlight of the day came later.  After the landing, NASA
opened the restricted viewing area near the runway to the general public, so
thousands of people gathered down in front of the Enterprise to wait for the
president's speech.  (You all have your own opinions on the speech -- I won't
comment.) When Reagan was half way through talking, he gave the command
for the 747 to take off with Challenger on its back.  Then he talked for a few
more minutes, and soon this GIANT silver bird buzzed over almost directly
above the crowd.  Thousands of flags waved and thousands of people cheered.  It
was truly an impressive sight!

But that was not all by a long shot.  As the 747 kept going, I commented to my
wife that it sure took a long time for it to gain any altitude.  Reagan kept
talking.  Well, of course you all know, it was planned that way.  The monster
made a huge circle above the dry lake bed at an altitude of a few hundred feet,
and several minutes later it lumbered over us a second time, this time much
closer to the crowd.  I was busy taking snapshots and advancing film, while the
rest of the crowd was again busy waving flags, cheering, and exclaiming
"fantastic," "great," "terrific," "what a sight," and similar.  Then, when he was
right next to the President, the pilot dipped his wingtip, giving Reagan and the
entire crowd a beautiful closeup view of Challenger on the back of the 747. I
cannot fully put into words the feeling I experienced at that moment.  I will
remember it forever.

My only regret is that I did not have my movie camera with me that day.  I had
taken it along on my previous trip, and it proved to be just excess baggage at
that time.  So I can't share the feeling with others.  At least I will have it in my
own mind for a long time to come.

Stan

[I apologize for the delay in sending this, but I've been out of the office for
quite some time, and this is the first chance I've had to send this in.]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1982 at 1627-CDT
From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 
Subject: Satcom I & II reception
To: space at mit-mc


Where can I find out the coordinates of and the frequencies used
by Satcom I & II ?

		Ken Montgomery
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #249    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 249

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V2 #248    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 July 1982 08:21-EDT
From: Stewart Cobb <HSC at MIT-MC>
Subject:  SPACE Digest V2 #248    
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC


   Where can I find a transcript of President Reagan's July 4 speech?

Stewart

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #250    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 250

Today's Topics:
		       Getaway Special Info Request
			  Re: monopoles in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 1982 08:25 PDT
From: penalver.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Getaway Special Info Request
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:  penalver.es

I have been trying to send a message to one of the space digest's users
regarding a message that appeared on digest #243, but have been unsuccessful.
The address given in the original message was 
	decvax!pur-ee!pugas at Berkley
But sending mail to this address only generates invalid address messages.
What is the correct address I should be sending this mail to?

					Tony.....
------------**
Subject: Getaway Special Info Request
To: decvax!pur-ee!pugas@Berkley.ArpaGateway
cc:  penalver.es

Hello were any of you out at Melbourne for the ISS conference??
well I remember at least 3 of you....
					 This is Tony from OXY...
As far as I know the problems with the Utah state Getaway Special were all
electrical.  They had some reather bad problems with the NASA interface wireing
during the final chekout and had to re-do many of their electrical connections
at the "last minute", when ever that was.
When I hear anything out of JPL I will pass it along.

					Tony

**

please return the correct address to Penalver.es at PARCMARXC  ... thks

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 82 7:16:27-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Berkeley
Subject: Re: monopoles in space
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2288
Via:  news.usenet; 24 Jul 82 1:56-PDT


	Actually, it is possible to construct reasonable monopolar magnets
	right here in a gravitational field. Granted, their preformance is 
	not to great, but may be better in 0-g. Interesting thing is, 
	although monopolar magnets are not exactly the same as a monopole
	say in an asteroid (if they exist ), they do work, when really they
	shouldn't.

		From Raymond S.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Jul-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #251    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 251

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Brazil in Space
		      FTL:(faster than light travel)
			   SRB Search Continues
			  re: monopoles in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 82 7:16:21-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Brazil in Space

	'From decvax!cca!Jim@sri-unix
					Indeed why would they? For commercial
	transport they should depend on us(or rather hopefully US companies)just
	as other people do for most high tech services. The only ... '

WHY???

Those Brazilians had better apologize for the blatant lies and
misconceptions that they have been spreading. Really, do they think us so
stupid as to not see their reasons for opening up their own space program.
Their prmary purpose must be military.

That idea is mostly BS , to Jim@sri-unix , please furnish me with
conclusive proof or evidence of Brazils intentions in space. I hope you
can.

Why should Brazil or any other people depend on the US. Most transportat
-ion devices that the US makes are not all that great. Most european
countries make better stuff than the US does. i.e.
Cars,trucks,boats,tins,... Many high tech systems from outside the US
rival US high tech if not actually better. The only advantage the US has
is that they can come up with more, faster. The only other advantage that
the US has is that they are the only country that does have some sort of
reusable space system. Just because they do, is it really so inconcievable
that another country might want to do it themselves? By the way, Shuttle
tech is not all that high.

		From Raymond S.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 82 13:22:24-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Berkeley
Subject: FTL:(faster than light travel)

From decvax!miles!utzoo

Is there anyone out there interested in discussions in the field of FTL,
on a realistic basis not on a sci-fi basis?

		R.S.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 82 10:01:49-EDT (Sat)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: SRB Search Continues

The Long Lines, usually used to lay trans-Atlantic cables, will
embark for SRB water next week.  Hired by NASA, it is being fitted
with special equipment to enable it to haul the boosters out of
the water, assuming that SCARAB finds them.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 1982 0013-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: redford at WAFER
Subject: re: monopoles in space
Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11842401258.30.583.6084 at DEC-MARLBORO>

Think I missed something.  Is it really "possible to create monopolar
magnets in a gravitational field"?  What does gravity have to do with
it?  How can you possibly make a monopolar magnet without magnetic
monpoles?  
   On a slightly related subject, there was a Larry Niven story about
prospectors in the asteroid belt searching for monopoles (I think
it was the opening to "Protector").  Niven claimed that instruments
using monopoles had a sensitivity that dropped off as the radius R
rather than as R squared.  That sure doesn't sound right to me. Does
anyone know if there is anything to it?  I would think that the field
from a monpole would drop off with R^2 in just the same way as the 
electric field from a charge.
   --------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #252    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 252

Today's Topics:
		      On magnetic monopoles and FTL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: FONER@MIT-AI
Date: 07/25/82 16:24:10
Subject: On magnetic monopoles and FTL

FONER@MIT-AI 07/25/82 16:24:10 Re: On magnetic monopoles and FTL
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Scientific American recently had a very good article on the
mathematical basis and current status of magnetic monopoles.  One of
the major conclusion of the article was on the apparently tremendous
masses of such particles---a monopole was theorized to weigh about
as much as an amoeba.  Unfortunately, I can't find the article, though
I'm prtty sure it was within the last year.  If anyone can provide a
reference, I and presumably others would be grateful.

On the subject of faster-than-light drives (and the apparent
violations of causality and other important physical laws that such
things imply), I too would be very interested to find out if anyone
has done anything that shows any sort of support for such drives.
Alas, such research looks like it will be another Dean Drive affair.

						<LNF>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #253    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 253

Today's Topics:
			    Magnetic monopoles
			  Holes in the Radio Sky
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 1982 09:50 PDT
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Magnetic monopoles
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

	There was a pretty long piece in the "Science and the Citizen" 
section of Sci Am maybe 3 months ago.  If I remember right a recent 
experiment seems to have detected a monopole.

	They left current flowing in an isolated superconducting loop
of wire for a couple of months, after which the current had changed by
the amount that someone's theory predicted would occur if a monopole had
drifted through the loop in the interimn.  I think the article also said that
finding one monopole in that time period with that size loop was not far
from what you'd expect if there were enough of the buggers around to
make up the "missing mass" that worries astronomers.

						Jerry  

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 1982 1050-PDT
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: Holes in the Radio Sky
To: space at MIT-MC

I was wondering whether geosynchronous satellites are causing radio
astronomers any dilemmas. What effect does such a satellite have
on the appearance of the radio-sky? Are we blotting out the visibility
of whatever is behind these satellites?
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #254    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 254

Today's Topics:
			  Holes in the Radio Sky
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 July 1982  08:46-PDT (Tuesday)
From: KING at KESTREL
To:   Robert Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Cc:   space at MIT-MC
Subject: Holes in the Radio Sky

	I doubt that geosynchronous satellites cause any problems for
radio astronomers.  First, I assume designers of satellite systems
would have made the downlink frequencies ones that were quiet for
their own sakes.
	Second, the satellites are low enough so that if one radio
astronomy setup is disturbed, another will be able to pick up the
signal.
	Third, radio astronomers' targets are not stationary in the
sky.  Nor (as I understand it) does their equipment necessarily
require long, uninterrupted exposures.  It may merely be necessary to
snip out (say) seven second segments every four minutes.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Jul-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #255    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 255

Today's Topics:
			      space activism
			   Tracking space junk
		      Re: Gravitational Information
	   Re: On magnetic monopoles and FTL parse date string
		       SCARAB Photographs Boosters
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 82 10:22:06-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.foster
       at Berkeley
Subject: space activism
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8120
Via:  news.usenet; 28 Jul 82 5:23-PDT

	I'm tired of watching the US space program slowly waste away...
Any space activists out there with info on L5 or similar groups?

				Gregg Foster
				UCB

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 82 17:05:17-PDT (Mon)
To: space at mit-mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!eagle!karn
       at Berkeley
Subject: Tracking space junk
Article-I.D.: eagle.424
Via:  news.usenet; 28 Jul 82 5:30-PDT

>From the July 26, 1982 issue of Amsat Satellite Report:

NEW SATELLITE TRACKING TELESCOPE ON LINE
	Ever wonder how various government agencies keep track of
all the satellites and assorted refuse floating around in orbit? 
The following news item from the "Washington Report" column of the
July 8, 1982 issue of Electronic Design Magazine allows a glimpse.
	"A computer-driven telescope designed to track satellites as
far out as 22,000 miles has been put into operation at the White
Sands Missle Range near Socorro, N.M.  The scope, which can detect
objects as small as a soccer ball in space, was developed by TRW,
Inc. (Newbury Calif.) Called Ground-based Electro-Optical Deep Space
Survey (GEODSS), the system is controlled by four Digital Equipment
Corp. PDP-11/70's.  One hundred images per minute are recorded by a
television camera and converted into digital pulses by a custom
video processor from Itek Corp.  The mainframes then filter out the
surrounding stars and display the satellites as streaks of light on
CRTs.  The telescope is one of five planned around the globe. 
Korean and Hawaiian sites are to be operational by late summer, and
others in the Indian Ocean and eastern Atlantic regions should be up
and running by the mid-1980s".

	Reproduced with permission.  Thanks Electronic Design, KB2M.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 82 14:23:29-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Gravitational Information
Article-I.D.: whuxlb.360
Via:  news.usenet; 28 Jul 82 22:10-PDT

	Take 2 objects A and B. B moves away, When does
	object A feel the loss in gravitational attraction?

Current theory (and it's been current a LONG time) is that this information
travels at the speed of light.  By the way, the "speed of light" is a 
deceptive term: think of it as "the maximum speed at which information
can propagate."  It is also the speed at which particles of rest mass zero
must travel to be "real."  Thus, whether you view gravity as a geometrical
abstraction (per A. Einstein) or as mediated by massless gravitons, you
"know" about an event (such as the acceleration of a nearby object) when
the information arrives (at the speed of light).

Note that that is a LOWER bound on when you notice; if gravitons somehow
turn out to have nonzero rest mass, then they cannot travel at the speed
of light, so obviously the information takes longer to propagate.

=Ned Horvath=

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 82 9:44:58-PDT (Tue)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!mhuxm!3951bb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: On magnetic monopoles and FTL parse date string
Article-I.D.: mhuxm.1004
Via:  news.usenet; 28 Jul 82 22:37-PDT


	Was is new and what kinds of research is being done on the transport
of gravitational information. Take 2 objects A and B. B moves away, When done
object A feel the loss in gravitational attraction?

More to ponder...

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 82 7:27:14-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Berkeley
Subject: SCARAB Photographs Boosters
Article-I.D.: alice.814
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jul 82 0:38-PDT

SCARAB yesterday took pictures of the SRB's that sank after launch
on STS-4.  NASA officials will decide after inspecting the pictures
whether or not to try and salvage some or all of the boosters; they
would like to obtain at least the recorders aboard.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #256    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 256

Today's Topics:
			Re: Holes in the Radio Sky
			    monopole articles
	      Re: NASA Student Rat Project Questioned - (nf)
			Re: Holes in the Radio Sky
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 82 21:39:06-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!harpo!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Holes in the Radio Sky
Article-I.D.: unc.3752
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jul 82 6:57-PDT


Certain frequency bands are allocated by WARC (World Administrative Radio
Conference) for use by radio astronomers.  I seem to recall that there is
starting to be some problem about encroachment on these bands, though.


		Steve Bellovin
		duke!unc!smb
		smb.unc@udel-relay

------------------------------

Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-750R received by CMU-10A at 29-Jul-82 10:07:18-EDT
Date: 29 Jul 1982 09:15:38-EDT
From: Greg.Toto at CMU-750R at CMU-10A
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: monopole articles

The Science and the Citizen article in Scientific American is in the July '82
issue (p. 70). There is also an article in the April '82 issue (Superheavy
Magnetic Monopoles) on p. 106. I think they are worth a look for general
interest.

				Greg Toto  (gmt@cmu-750r)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 82 21:27:08-PDT (Wed)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!grunwald at Berkeley
Subject: Re: NASA Student Rat Project Questioned - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.287
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jul 82 7:49-PDT

#R:ihima:-10600:uiucdcs:12700009:000:267
uiucdcs!grunwald    Jul 28 21:07:00 1982

I think they should send them out -- if nothing else, that's 16 less rats
that'll be on the earth. Good science is hard to come by. I don't think that
it would be fair to the kid who designed the thing to have his experiment
rejected at the last minute, so to speak.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 82 11:35:58-PDT (Thu)
To: space at mit-mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.hal at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Holes in the Radio Sky
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.416
Via:  news.usenet; 29 Jul 82 23:07-PDT

References: sri-unix.2287

    A geosynchronous satellite is stationary with respect to the Earth,
NOT with respect to the stars!  Thus, a given satellite will block a
radio telescopes view of a given area of the celestial sphere for a
limited time (once per day).

Hal Chambers
pur-ee!Physics:hal

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Jul-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #257    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 257

Today's Topics:
		   Gravitational attraction and shifts
				Space Law
		       Re: SPACE Digest V2 #256    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 July 1982 1117-EDT (Friday)
From: Arpanet.Guest at CMU-10A
To: space at mit-mc
Subject:  Gravitational attraction and shifts
CC: decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at UCB-C70
Message-Id: <30Jul82 111746 GS0T@CMU-10A>

Concerning the question of objects A and B, and the time it takes
B to realise that A is gone, consider the following (lightly though!)

	Given that recently (50+ years) we have compiled some
	accurate astronomical data, does it not follow that 
	we could take a known event of stellar proportions such
	as a nova or supernova and track it out to it's
	corresponding actions on the red/blue shift of a 
	nearby star and thus measure the time delay?
		Since the distance to nova A is known,
	and the distance to star B is known, and thus
	the distance between them, the earth-object
	times are known and thus of no importance, and
	the object-object time becomes the control.
		If the change is very slight, which
	is very likely, do we have a means of accurate
	measurement? Would the space telescope provide
	the nessecary level of discretion?

This is my first attempt at net communication, and I can only hope
that somehow it will get through.
			Greg Maples
			n900gs0t@cmua
			gmm@mit-mc,ai

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 1982 1017-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Space Law
To: space at MIT-MC

REASON magazine had a very interesting August issue.  I've already
mentioned one article in arms-d; there is another one pertinent to this
digest.

Keith Henson (a founder a first president of L5) and Arel Lucas start
their article on "Star Laws" with the following piece:

    With tears in his eyes, the commander of the US moon base spoke to
  the woman begging for asylum.
    "Sonya, my personal sympathies are with you.  But I have my authorities
  above me.  I have to do what is required.  You will have to return to
  your base."
    "Please!" pleaded Sonya.  "They will kill me.  I will not go back."
    The commander reluctantly left his office and admitted the Russians.
  Dr. Gale Roberts, one of the civilian scientists at the base, later
  recounted the incident to the press.
    "We could hear the woman's cries for help.  She was on her knees, praying
  and crying, 'Oh God help me.'  The Russians came in.  Sometimes I
  couldn't see her, but I could hear her screaming.  Then she ran to the
  upper deck.  Her face was all bloody.
    "She hid for a while, but three more Russians were let in.  They found
  her, beat her unconcious.  Then they tied her in a blanket and carried
  her out the airlock.
    "We're not even sure they put a suit on her in the airlock," said Dr.
  Roberts.  "Nobody was permitted to look."

Change "Sonya" to "Simas", and "moon base" to "Coast Guard Cutter Vigilant"
and you have an incident that occured in November 1970. (See Dec. 14 TIME.)
A Lithuanian radio operator defected to the Vigilant, but the captain was
ordered to return him.  He was beaten, suffering kidney damage, and was
sent to Siberia.

But the US has signed a treaty REQUIRING us the return defectors.  Article
VIII of the 1967 Space Treaty states "A State ... shall retain jurisidiction
and control over such object [spacecraft] and over any personnel thereof";
Article IV of the Rescue Agreement, which enjoins signers to return
personnel, willing or not;  Article XII of the Moon Treaty says that "States...
shall retain jurisdiction and control over their personnel."

The article continues by explaining how the treaties would eliminate (in space)
the rights of privacy and private property.  It ends by urging the President
to formally reject the Moon treaty as he has rejected the Law of the Sea
treaty.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 1982 1039-PDT
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #256    
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: KATZ at USC-ISIF
In-Reply-To: Your message of 30 Jul 1982 0302-PDT

Am I imagining something or are we (on the ArpaNet) see only some of
the message from the Berkeley people (the ones with all the !'s in 
their address)???  There seems to be many messages which talk about
previous messages I havn't seen.  Examples include the one about
the rats, and the first message which mentioned some bizarre thing
about generating a monopolar field with out monopoles if you are
in a gravitational field (or some such nonsense).

If this is indeed happening, can something be done by somebody somewhere
to remedy the situation??


				Alan

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 1982 1319-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I assume that the reason for these appearent violations of causality are
caused by people responding to messages that appear on their local (or at
least more local) Sapce BBoards, and the "luck of the draw" causes them
arrive first.  Since the transit times through the Usenet seem to vary
wildly this seems emminently plausible.  Another cause of the problem is
that the Unix people seem the messages directly without going through the
digestification process.  Thus there is no central "clock" which keeps all
the discussions causally related (synchronous).

I suspect that the original question that prompted the "rat" reply will
filter in.  An alternatice suggestion is that the person accidently
misdirected his reply to the Space digest.  Fortunately this is not a
serious problem so the best thing to do is probably to ignore it.
	-Ted Anderson

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #258    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 258

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Gravitational Information
				Space Law
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 82 16:17:19-EDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!rhm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Gravitational Information
Article-I.D.: alice.824
Via:  Usenet; 31 Jul 82 15:48-PDT

References: whuxlb.360

Are you suggesting that the gravitational force acting on a planet
acts in the direction that the sun was one light time ago?  If so,
all of orbit theory has to be revised.
Or perhaps you suggest that object B suddenly "decides " to move?
Exactly how can this occur, please?

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 1982 1648-PDT
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI> <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Space Law
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: dietz at USC-ECL
Reply-To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI

	Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>

	But the US has signed a treaty REQUIRING us the return
	defectors.  Article VIII of the 1967 Space Treaty states "A
	State ... shall retain jurisidiction and control over such
	object [spacecraft] and over any personnel thereof"; Article
	IV of the Rescue Agreement, which enjoins signers to return
	personnel, willing or not; Article XII of the Moon Treaty says
	that "States...  shall retain jurisdiction and control over
	their personnel."

There is NOTHING wrong with these provisions - indeed, they should be
DESIRED by us (and are).  Under them American citizens must be under
the jurisdiction and control of Americans.  Otherwise the Soviets
could enforce THEIR laws against our personal and control their
actions if in Soviet territory.  Of course this means we cannot meddle
in Soviet affairs (something THEY wanted), but it protects OUR people
- which is the first priority.

I have no problems about these provisions - our citizens will have a
reasonable degree of self government.  It is not good for the Soviet
citizens, but what can you do?  The ultimate answer is to allow
individuals in space to form their own independent governments - but
that is not possible in the short term.

Jim

-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #259    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 259

Today's Topics:
				 Shuttle
	     Gravitational propagation and the general theory
		 Is acceleration relative? The answer: No
	   Relativity vs. grativitational effects of Supernovae
	      Finite rate of information travel, and orbits.
			      re: space law
		   Gravitational attraction and shifts
			     STS-5 visibility
	    Re: Finite rate of information travel, and orbits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 82 8:18:57-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!eagle!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle
Article-I.D.: alice.816
Via:  Usenet; 1 Aug 82 3:37-PDT

A high NASA official said yesterday that the fifth flight of
the space shuttle will probably land at KSC.  Though they do
not yet have cross winds landing experience, NASA people feel
confident that the shuttle can land there, after they saw how
well it performed on EAFB's concrete runway.

In other news, the same official said that the failure of the
parachutes may have been caused by a malfunctioning sensor
that cut half of the lines leading to the main parachutes,
preventing the others from opening, as it opened instead of
upon impact with the water.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 82 13:18:08-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekmdp!dadla-b!dadla-a!steve at Ucb-C70
Subject: Gravitational propagation and the general theory
Article-I.D.: dadla-a.216
Via:  Usenet; 1 Aug 82 3:48-PDT

One time I went down to one of our local universities and dug up a
PH.D candidate in physics and asked him, in a much more complex fashion,
the question asked by whuxlb!ech (that is, what is the propagation delay of
gravity).

The answer was also complicated, but it went something like this:

The question you ask is meaningless. How can body A measure his response
to what body B is doing? For any given observed behavior at body A there
are an infinite number of places in the universe that body B could be that
could cause the effects.

Yes (I responded), but we are not dealing with an infinite number of places,
but rather the end points of a well defined line. When body B goes from
one place to another, then what is the precise observed effect at body A
when B reaches its end point? How much longer does the change in effect
occur at A when B reaches his end point?

(he responded) Now you are falling into another trap. There is no such
thing as "simultaneity" in a relativistic universe. To ask any question
about "the same time at two different places" is meaningless.

And so on...

This was all with respect to the General theory of relativity, which has
apparently fallen into ill-repute in recent years (due to its conflicts
with quantum theory).

Around and around I went with him, and every question I asked came down to
"That is meaningless - the effects you are looking for either do not exist
or cannot be measured."

Sigh.....

		Steve Den Beste
		Tektronix

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 82 18:35:15-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekmdp!dadla-b!dadla-a!steve at Ucb-C70
Subject: Is acceleration relative? The answer: No
Article-I.D.: dadla-a.217
Via:  Usenet; 1 Aug 82 3:54-PDT

   It is a common misunderstanding that acceleration is a relative
thing in Relativity theory. One aspect of the Special Theory is that there are
"real" frames of reference, and "artificial" frames of reference.
A "real" frame is one that is not accelerating. An "artificial"
frame *is* (no prize) accelerating.
   In other words, velocity, position, time, and mass are all
relative, but acceleration is absolute. Measurements taken in an
artificial frame (which by the theory can be deduced by the
individuals living in that frame) can determine that it
*is* an artificial frame.
   Were this not the case, there would be an ambiguity in the
classic "twin" problem: a pair of twins are born on Earth. One stays
home, and the other gets on a ship which accelerates to
short-of-light-speed out to a certain point, then returns.
When they meet again, which has aged more? Were acceleration
relative, the theory would be ambiguous. Since the twin in the
ship has accelerated (4 times) he (she?) is the one in the
artificial frame, and therefore he/she has the incorrect observation. In
other words, the theory unambiguously predicts that the one that stayed
at home ages and the one on the ship does not.
When they meet, the one who stays home has aged more.
It turns out that the twin on the ship can predict the
difference, but only by assuming that his (her?) observations
(except for the observations of acceleration) are fallacious.
In other words he (she?) computes the problem as the other twin
wuld observe it - thus coming up with the "true" answer. (Well,
close enough for government work, and a damn sight closer
than if based on observations from the ship!)
   It turns out that by definition an object that is rotating
is accelerating, and therefore is in an artificial frame of reference.
Therefore, the ant on the phonograph cannot make Andromeda
move faster than light simply by rotating - because his (her?)
observations are fallacious. (Of course, in theory this invalidates
every observation of modern physics because the Earth rotates, but this
can be corrected for. Lucky for us!)

   It is an aspect of the *General* theory, not the Special theory
that there is no way to differentiate between an gravitational
attraction and an acceleration.
(I am a hell of a lot fuzzier about this than I am about the
Special Theory, so don't quote m)
This is manifestly false, as I will demonstrate:
   One can measure "down" from two points. This defines two
mathematical lines. If they intersect "below" the two points,
then the observers are in a gravitational
field. If they intersect "above" then they are in a centripetal
field (say, Niven's "Ringworld" or some such artifact, probably
much smaller). If they do not intersect at all, then they are in
an accelerating frame, and all of their measurements are
fallacious. (Further, since *all* accelerating frames are fallacious,
this particular one has the distinction of being one in which the
individuals cannot correct their observations.)
   I once read a science fiction story in which the idea that
acceleration is absolute was espoused as proof of the falsity
of the Special Theory. As with most science fiction, the
author was not attempting to be scientifically correct, but
rather to come up with a plausible rationale for changing the
status quo for his (her?) story. No slur is intended on the
author: there is no mandate on science fiction authors to
stay within current capabilities - indeed there is a mandate on them to exceed such limits (otherwise
it wouldn't be science fiction. NO FLAMING!).

   I hope this clears up the question of the ant on the turntable.

     Steve Den Beste
     Tektronix

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 82 18:51:53-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekmdp!dadla-b!dadla-a!steve at Ucb-C70
Subject: Relativity vs. grativitational effects of Supernovae
Article-I.D.: dadla-a.218
Via:  Usenet; 1 Aug 82 3:55-PDT

I hope all you folks out there understand that when I argue the
orthodox point of view, that I don't necessarily believe it.

Re: the effects of a SuperNova on nearby stars, over the short
run (say a million years or less) the gravitational attraction
of the Supernova would not be measurable on nearby stars since
the center of gravity of the Supernova would not change.

   Only when the closest mass from the Supernova was (say) a quarter
of the distance of the farthest mass would the inverse-square
aspect of the law of Gravitation make a difference. However, you
have a problem with all the mass in between the nearest and farthest.

I don't think you could come up with any observations that were
meaningful - even if it weren't the case that the movement
of the star in question would be measured in inches rather than
parsecs.
   So it goes...

------------------------------

Date: 1 August 1982 14:33-EDT
From: John G. Aspinall <JGA at MIT-MC>
Subject: Finite rate of information travel, and orbits.
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC
cc: JGA at MIT-MC


    Date: 31 Jul 82 16:17:19-EDT (Sat)
    To: space at Mit-Mc
    From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!rhm at Ucb-C70
    Subject: Re: Gravitational Information
    Article-I.D.: alice.824
    Via:  Usenet; 31 Jul 82 15:48-PDT

    References: whuxlb.360

    Are you suggesting that the gravitational force acting on a planet
    acts in the direction that the sun was one light time ago?  If so,
    all of orbit theory has to be revised.

Exactly.  Perhaps you have heard of A. Einstein?

    Or perhaps you suggest that object B suddenly "decides " to move?
    Exactly how can this occur, please?

Seriously, this is exactly the effect that causes the perihelic shift
of the planets, notably Mercury, that Einstein explained in 1915.
There are many ways to "explain" it, but one way to look at it is
to regard the motion of any object as being controlled by the local
space-time metric.  Then the geodesic in a central force field
(the Schwarzschild metric, for you jargon fans), gives the orbit of
a mass that is negligibly small compared to the central mass.

The solution of the geodesic gives you something that looks like
Kepler's Law, but with an extra term that contains 1/c^2 .  This
term disappears in the limit that c approaches infinity, which
is what you'd expect in the classical limit.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 1982 1139-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-AI
cc: redford at WAFER
Subject: re: space law
Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11844361250.22.583.6032 at DEC-MARLBORO>

As I understand it, the US rejected the Law of the Sea treaty because
of the provisions about sharing the income from seabed mining operations
with the Third World.  This was thought to be both unfair and a disincentive
to the mining companies.  However, the proponents of the treaty argued 
that it was even more unfair for any one nation to benefit exclusively
from resources which they had no prior claim to.  And mining companies
might be even more reluctant to undertake major programs in a
complete legal vacuum.  The technology for dredging up manganese nodules
from the deep sea floor is not cheap.  Suppose that while you are
working in the North Atlantic England suddenly extends her territorial
waters to cover your area, sends in its own harvesters, and politely
evicts you.  What do you do? Call in the Marines?
   The same argument applies to space resources.  Say that both the
US and Japan find a precious lode of ice on the Moon.  Who gets it?
The ones who can hole the others spacesuits?  A businessman would be mad
to invest in an operation without a legal framework for orderly
development.  Such a framework must be agreed upon internationally, and
that means that we must pay attention to other countries' interests.
If their demands are unreasonable, well then let's negotiate that.
It's not as if there's any rush about the issues.  But doing without a
treaty would surely kill civilian development of space.
   --------

------------------------------

Date: 1 August 1982 18:25-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Gravitational attraction and shifts
To: Arpanet.Guest at CMU-10A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at UCB-C70

It is my understanding that most supernovas are rather symmetrical.
Since an object that is symmetric has the same gravitational force at
a given distance from its center of mass regardless of the radial
distribution of the mass, providing the distance is greater than the
radius of the object (distance from center to furthest part of its
mass), a supernova would cause no gravitational effect on another
object until after the outer parts of the star that exploded had
passed the other object, by which time that object would be knocked
about by physical impact, masking the change in gravitational force.

An asymmetrical explosion would cause a net change in gravitational
force at distances beyond the radius of the explosion, but computing
just what this change might be as we look at a 2-dimensional telescope
image of the supernova from a distance of many light years, would be
too difficult. We might see the gravitational effect on the other
object and not know whether our observed supernova did it or not
(perhaps a dark star collided with it, perhaps some other
gravitational wave did it, ...). I doubt we can predict the
gravitational change accurately enough to confirm or refute it by our
observations of that other object.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 82 15:49:01-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: STS-5 visibility
Article-I.D.: eagle.436
Via:  Usenet; 1 Aug 82 20:17-PDT

I am wondering if anybody knows the sequence of events planned for
STS-5.  This is the first operational mission of the shuttle, and
the first to use a solid-fuel upper stage for the payloads (SBS-C
and a Telesat satellite).

I would expect that the exhaust plumes from the solid upper stages,
which use essentially the same fuel as the shuttle boosters, will
expand rapidly in vacuum and reflect sunlight.
If the upper stages are fired within view of an observer in
darkness, they should be very visible for a short time.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 82 23:34:47-EDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!duke!unc!smb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Finite rate of information travel, and orbits.
Article-I.D.: unc.3777
Via:  Usenet; 1 Aug 82 22:57-PDT


And presumably, gravity waves -- which should in principle be detectable,
especially from detonation of a supernova -- are a manifestation of the
propogation time of gravity (I think).

		--Steve Bellovin
		duke!unc!smb
		smb.unc@udel-relay

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #260    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 260

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V2 #259    
			       space treaty
			      Re: Space Law
	    Re: Finite rate of information travel, and orbits.
		      Re: Infinite Propogation Speed
				gravitons
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 August 1982 08:46-EDT
From: Stewart Cobb <HSC at MIT-MC>
Subject:  SPACE Digest V2 #259    
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

   I too am fuzzy on General Relativity (is there anyone out there who
isn't?) but I don't think Steve Den Beste's method for telling apart
acceleration and gravitational fields will work.  His method was to
compare the direction of DOWN in two different locations.
Unfortunately, GR says (among other things) that space is curved.
There's no such thing as an absolute direction, just as there's no
such thing as an absolute time reference (simultaniety) in SR.  In
fact, the amount that straight lines bend (a straight line is, of
necessity, defined as the path that a beam of light will take) is
directly related to the local strength of the gravitational field.
   I think a professor once told me that a method such as Steve's will
work in most simple cases (here on Earth, for example) but is not
guaranteed to work in all cases.  General Relativity remains relative.

                                Stewart Cobb (cobb@nbs-vms)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 1982 14:23:08-EDT
From: dee at CCA-UNIX (Donald Eastlake)
To: dietz at USC-ECL
Subject: space treaty
Cc: space at mit-mc

Your theory that a piece of paper with signatures on it would protect a
US citizen on the moon who wanders into a Russian (or Moselm or whatever)
base given that the other country is willing to offend the USA by
foreceably detaining that person is silly.  I don't see any difference
between lunar bases and countries on earth in the law and customs that
should apply to citizens when entering areas physically under the control
of another country.
		Donald E. Eastlake, III (dee@cca-unix)

------------------------------

Date:  2 Aug 1982 1057-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Re: Space Law
To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC
cc: DIETZ at USC-ECL
In-Reply-To: Your message of 31-Jul-82 1648-PDT

There is EVERYTHING wrong with the space treaties.  They are based on the
awful idea that citizens of a country are the property of that country's
government.  Essentially, you are saying that if the US government does
not claim possession of its citizens then the USSR can collect them like
wild animals.

A far better solution would be for US citizens in space to be allowed
to defend themselves against coercion.  It is neither necessary nor desirable
for the US government to fulfill this function.  The government won't
allow this, of course, because the people in space could defend themselves
against US government coercion too.

And why is forming governments in space the ultimate answer?  I thought
governments are the whole problem.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 82 10:23:05-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!floyd!rhm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Finite rate of information travel, and orbits.

The Aspinwall theory of gravitation is incorrect.
The gravitational force acting on body A at time t (measured at A)
depends precisely on the distance and direction of body B at time t
(also measured at A).  Relativity did not do away with the measurement
of time and distance.

The perihelion shift of mercury and other planets is a tiny and essentially
unrelated effect.

Simply stated, the claim that the gravitational force on body A depends
on the position of body B one light-time ago is flatly incorrect.
It is not and never has been a disputed question.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 82 11:40:24-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Infinite Propogation Speed

floyd!rhm's statement that:

The gravitational force acting on body A at time t (measured at A)
depends precisely on the distance and direction of body B at time t
(also measured at A).  Relativity did not do away with the measurement
of time and distance.

is absolutely correct.  However, he proceeds to draw (or imply) the
erroneous conclusion that the position of B, measured at A at time t, 
IS the position of B.  Sorry, not so.  The emphasis is on the phrase
"as measured at A," and the information AVAILABLE at A is always retarded
by (at least) the speed of light limit.

By analogy, imagine that you are chasing a train, in the dark, by the 
sound of its passing; you are "attracted" by the sound, but will always
move toward the point the train was at WHEN THE SOUND WAS EMITTED.  
Obviously, if sound had an infinite propogation speed, you'd be headed
directly for the train, but a finite propogation speed implies that you will
head for where it's BEEN.

The same applies to the gravitational problem in question: A is attracted
to B based on "best information available".  That is the actual location of
B ONLY if gravitation propogates at infinite speed.

By the way, infinite propogation speed of gravity implies the ability to
build an infinite-speed "radio:"  just vibrate a mass and measure the 
position of the mass at some arbitrary distance.  By modulating the 
vibration you can transmit a signal at infinite speed.  The existence
of such a "radio" would blow all omodern cosmology right out the door,
by the way, destroying relativistic causality...

=Ned Horvath=

------------------------------

Date:  2 August 1982 23:00 edt
From:  Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  gravitons
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 29 July 1982 06:03 edt from Ted Anderson

Common oversimplification?  Relativity supposedly says you can't procedd
through the speed of light from either side; it doesn't say nothing can
exist on the other side of the hump (e.g., tachyons).  From the data so
far presented, why must there be a lower bound on detection time at all?
Maybe there's a good reason that gravitons aren't "always-FTL" objects,
but that ain't it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #261    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 261

Today's Topics:
				   FTL
	       using Supernovas to measure gravity's speed
				   FTL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 82 13:33:20-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70
Subject: FTL

Quite a few people are interested in FTL discussions. So where do we
start? Any suggestions?

------------------------------

Date: 3 August 1982  10:01-PDT (Tuesday)
From: KING at KESTREL
To:   SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: using Supernovas to measure gravity's speed

	A supernova explosion, per se, would have no effect on nearby
stars because the gravity of any spherically symmetric mass is the
same as the gravity of an equal point mass at its center, provided
that the measurement is made farther from the center than any of the
symmetric mass.

                            H O W E V E R

	A supernova suddenly unleashes radiation, decreasing the mass
of the object.  (Anyone know by how much?  I would assume a few tenths
of a percent.)  This doesn't help, however, because the radiation
wouldn't be beyond the target star until the gravitational effects of
the explosion should have gone that far.
	What we really want is an object that shoots off mass in an
asymmetrical manner.  I seem to recall reading something about gas
jets in Scientific American...

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 82 12:55:42-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Ucb-C70
Subject: FTL
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2331
Via:  Usenet; 4 Aug 82 1:17-PDT

  
   Poul Anderson had a nice-sounding method of faster-then-light
travel in (I believe) his Polesotechnic League stories.
It involved  installing a device on a ship that causes the
entire ship to make a microscopic "quantum jump", the way that
an electron does in a tunnel diode--moving from one location to
another without occupying the intervening space, and presumably
in zero time. Each jump is quite small, but the device triggers
at a high frequency, so that the ship ends up moving a large
distance in a given time--faster than light, in Anderson's universe.
One interesting feature of the drive is that when it is turned off,
the ship need not have any intrinsic velocity. It could be
sitting dead in space between jumps. Of course, it need not
sit still between jumps; you could go a bit faster by accelerating in
the direction of the jumps, using a normal reaction-drive.
HOWEVER...if you have no intrinsic velocity, there's no time-
dilation, and no Doppler-shifting of the starlight as seen by the
ship, making for easier astrogation.
   I'm not suggesting this as a realistic form of FTL travel,
but then, if we limit ourselves to realistic forms of FTL travel,
the discussion won't last for very long...
Kieran A. Carroll
 ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #262    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 262

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Infinite Propogation Speed
		       Re: SPACE Digest V2 #261    
			 Space policy legislation
			   Filament-wound SRBs
				   FTL
			       Space Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 82 9:18:46-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.hal at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Infinite Propogation Speed

    With respect to the finite propogation time of gravitational information,
I have always thought it would be an interesting experiment to do the
following:

	Position yourself at the center of the sun,
	    (without burning up, preferably)

	Destroy the sun in some non-cataclysmic, instantaneous way.

	Watch the Earth continue to orbit for ~16 minutes.

This would all be done for the sake of Science, of course!!

Hal Chambers
decvax!pur-ee!Physics:hal

------------------------------

Date:  4 Aug 1982 1234-PDT
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #261    
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: KATZ at USC-ISIF
In-Reply-To: Your message of 04 Aug 1982 0303-PDT

IT IS NOT TRUE that in a tunnel diode the electrons move from one
place to another without occupying the intervening space.  The electrons
DO occupy the intervening space (their wave functions do).  I have
heard this in many science fiction stories (and pseudo-science books)
and it shows a complete misunderstanding of quantum mechanics (although
it sounds neat in an SF story).

Classically, it would be impossible for an electron of a given energy
to cross a certain barrier, however, quantum mechanically, there is
a finite (but small) probability that the electron does cross it.  Since
there are many electrons, some of them do get through even though
according to classical mechanics (which is wrong in this regime) they 
should not.  The electrons that do get through had their wave function
transmitted through the barrier (its like a similar effect with
light waves).

				Alan
-------

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 1982 1305-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: Space policy legislation
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8] 4-Aug-82 13:05:36.WMARTIN>

From the "Professional Pipeline" column, by Carole Patton, in the
Aug 2, '82, issue of ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING TIMES, page 32, in a
discussion of engineering-related legislation:

"Two 'space policy' bills, one sponsored by Rep.  George Brown,
Jr.  (D-CA) and the other by Rep.  Newton Gingrich (R-GA), are an
attempt to establish a long-range space program.  STATUS: Both HR
3412 (Rep.  Brown's bill), and the Gingrich bill are tentatively
scheduled for hearings in August."

***End extract ***

I recall recent plaintive messages wanting to know how to
influence the future of the space program.  This seems an
excellent opportunity.  I suggest those concerned write these
congressmen for copies of the bills and express their views.

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date:  4 August 1982 1747-EDT (Wednesday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  Filament-wound SRBs
Message-Id: <04Aug82 174743 DS30@CMU-10A>

Thiokol is working on lightweight SRB casings for the Shuttle, 
made of filament-wound Kevlar.  Supposedly, these casings will be
reusable, like the present ones.

I recently spoke with a manufacturing engineer who works for Thiokol.
He told me that the design engineers all agree that no matter what anyone
says, it won't be possible to reuse the lightweight casings -- that
the reusability is just a fiction to get the funds appropriated.
He agreed with my response that the project sounded like a waste of money.

Is this an instance of Nasa paying for the development of something
that only the Air Force wants?

------------------------------

Date:  4 August 1982 20:25 cdt
From:  VaughanW.REFLECS at HI-Multics
Subject:  FTL
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

Since when is quantum tunneling instantaneous?  I see no reason why it
should not take finite time... everything else does.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 82 15:26:34-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ucbvax!G.wing at Ucb-C70
Subject: Space Digest
Article-I.D.: populi.277
Via:  Usenet; 4 Aug 82 23:37-PDT

In contrast to Article 742, could somebody put me ON the Space Digest mailing
list.  Path in From statement.  Thanks...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #263    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 263

Today's Topics:
	     Re: using Supernovas to measure gravity"s speed
		     FTL: re: Poul Andersons method.
			    cancel utzoo.2330
		      re:supernovae & gravity waves
			    FWCs for the SRBs
			   FTL by quantum leaps
				relativity
	     Re: using Supernovas to measure gravity"s speed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 August 1982 06:34-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

My understanding of general relativity slightly contradicts what was said in this digest by menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekmdp!dadla-b!dadla-a!steve at Ucb-C70.

Accelleration and gravity are indistinguishable locally, i.e. if a
single measurement is made at a point. But if measurements are made at
different points then indeed a global picture may be obtained which
can possibly separate gravity and centrifugal force from true delta-vee/tee.
Note that this global analysis isn't trivial, for example mascons can
create gravity measurements that look more like non-gravity, and
there's no such thing as absolute space and absolute time so you can't
arrange measurements to be "simultaneous" so if forces are changing
with time you may have trouble getting any consistent global picture
at all. But at least with multiple measurements you can distinguish
the simple cases from each other.

Re sf, I see no reason sf has to contradict known and well-established
scientific theories. What's wrong with sticking to known science and
postulating new engineering uses for these, such as black-hole
mass-to-energy conversion, Dyson spheres, encyclopedia gallactica, etc.?
I'd rather see a good story about how to maintain a stable economy
when major shipments of precious metals arrive from the asteroid
mining colonies once every 14 months, bigger each time, sort of like
the bonus armies in the game of Risk; than read somebody's idlebrained
speculation about how if we could only go faster than light we could
...

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 82 13:32:59-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: using Supernovas to measure gravity"s speed
Article-I.D.: watmath.3193
Via:  Usenet; 5 Aug 82 3:56-PDT

References: sri-unix.2416

	A supernova, as I recall, blows away something like NINETY percent
of the stellar mass....

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 82 7:42:57-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70
Subject: FTL: re: Poul Andersons method.
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2337
Via:  Usenet; 5 Aug 82 4:07-PDT

	The functional device is not to realistic. But the whole idea sounds
 kind of nice. The part about having no intrinsic velocity has interesting 
 possibilities. But would that mean that one is using the motion of that which
 is around him to get from one point to another? Of course, where they not, if
i remember correctly,(if the same story) utilizing the fact that space is
 supposedly curved, and instead of travelling around the sphere of space, they
travelled through it? Not to long ago, and i will have to check where, a      
 university in the States came up with pretty good evidence that space is not
curved. The idea being, that were space curved then all the stars would be
be perfectly spherical. Einstein himself said so. But, using very accurate
and precision equipment, the univ. made measurements of the spherosity of
the sun, and found it to deviating from a perfect sphere around the equator,
 by a small percent of about 0.00019%. I am not sure of that value, but it was
 small, and that number seems to be what i remember it to have been. I will
 check and see if i can't dig up the article. Perhaps someone else read it.
  Anyhow, the error is small, but large enough to "destroy" the theory of 
 curved space, which would pose interesting problems with quantum physics.
 Just the same, Andersons method is interesting, and not to be forgotten,
 out of sci-fi have come many technical developments that were once put
 down as sci-fi only.

		Raymond S.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 82 7:26:08-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70
Subject: cancel utzoo.2330
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2336
Via:  Usenet; 5 Aug 82 4:17-PDT

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 82 13:46:06-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Ucb-C70
Subject: re:supernovae & gravity waves
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2338
Via:  Usenet; 5 Aug 82 4:37-PDT


   A supernova's gravitational effect on nearby stars might not be
negligible, for at least two reasons. The first is that the supernova
need not produce a spherically-symmetric nebula; hence the 
center of mass of the supernova remnant would be slightly different
from that of the pre-nova star. It might even be
significantly different, as I beleive that the amount of the star
blown off by the S-N would be on the order of 50%, rather than
0.1% or so.(although this is based on a rather hazy recollection
of some Asimov article(how's <that> for an example of pleading 
higher authority?)). Working out the ncenter of mass of the nebula
would be tricky, as not all the gas in it would be radiating
(ie. we wouldn't be able to see much of it); hence it would be hard
to correlate the mass-center shift with effects on other stars, in
any useful manner.
   The other possible effect is based on the presumed wave nature of
gravity (appropriate, as this experiment is designed to measure the
gravity-wave propagation speed, which can only be done if gravity
<is> wavelike). From what I've read of supernovae, they are quite 
rapid events, and involve large masses being shuffled about very
quickly.  This ought to generate a rapid change in the local
gravity-wave medium, perhaps analogous to  a shock wave in air.
The effects of the passage of this wave are what we would look
for in nearby stars and nebula. I can imagine it causing a ripple
through a nebula, or a sudden shift in the period of a variable star.
(of course, as far as astrophysics goes, I have more imagination
than real knowledge)
   The place where this experimaent might really fall down is
the use of "known" distances between stars as part of the
calculation of the speed of gravity. To my knowledge, it's
only for the very near stars that we have any precise idea
of distance. The farther stars are too far to use parallax as
an accurate distance-measurement, and so relative magnitude
of the stars must be used. Except, the ABSOLUTE magnitudes of the stars
are not really known, so this isn't all that accurate, either.
As a result, I'd be surprised if the distance of a star more than
(say) 10 parsecs away was known to better than (say) 5% accuracy.
(can anybody out there  in net.space-land confirm or refute this?)

Kieran A. Carroll
 ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date:  5 Aug 1982 1010-MDT
From: Pendleton at UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: FWCs for the SRBs
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Pendleton at UTAH-20
In-Reply-To: Your message of 5-Aug-82 0403-MDT

   Thiokol is working on kevlar SRB casings?  Very curious!
Hercules Aerospace has been awarded a contract to start BUILDING carbon fiber
cases for the SRB.  According to the Hercules in house paper, the tooling 
needed for production of the FWC ( Filament Wound Case ) has already 
started arriving.

   I have been told by engineers at Hercules that FWCs "might" be reusable.
The FWCs are based on technology developed for the MX transporter launch tube,
whose development costs were paid for by the Air Force.  These tubes have stood
up very well in testing.

   The engineers I have talked to claim that the cost of expendable FWCs vs. 
the improvement in payload gives a lower cost per pound in orbit.  I haven't 
seen figures to back this up, but a 30 to 50 percent increase in payload is 
expected.

        Bob Pendleton
-------

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 5 August 1982  17:31-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at UCB-C70
Cc: webb at CMU-20C, space at MIT-MC
Subject: FTL by quantum leaps

No, I think this is an OK form of FTL travel.  It is allowed in
Einstein's theories to travel faster than light; what you can't do is
send information faster than light.  So you could have, say, an electron
taking an FTL Brownian-motion path through the universe as long as the
speed from its starting point to its ending point is less than c.  The
only problem with this method for FTL travel is that you can't predict
where you'll end up, and you tend to get all your molecules scrambled up
pretty fast.

Jon

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 5 August 1982  17:21-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
subject: relativity
Cc: space at MIT-MC, webb at CMU-20C

2 observations: (1) General relativity isn't in disrepute lately; (2)
the whole thing about distinguishing between accelaration and
gravitational attraction is bogus, because the principle of equivalence
applies only at a point; you can distinguish between the two effects but
only by measuring the accelaration at different places.

Jon

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 82 12:05:24-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!floyd!rhm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: using Supernovas to measure gravity"s speed
Article-I.D.: floyd.422
Via:  Usenet; 5 Aug 82 20:28-PDT

References: watmath.3193

Re watmath!pcmcgeers comment about loss of supernova mass, let us be
a bit more precise.  To wit,
A supernova blows away NONE of the stellar mass...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #264    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 264

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V2 #263    
			    Space in the News
			Supernovas & Mass Ejection
		     FTL: re: Poul Andersons method.
			 Supernova, Gravity, Etc
			   Star Trek newsgroup
				   FTL?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 August 1982 09:28-EDT
From: Stewart Cobb <HSC at MIT-MC>
Subject:  SPACE Digest V2 #263    
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

   In regard to decvax!utzoo!miles's comments, I too remember an
article which stated that the sun was not a perfect sphere.  Someone
had finally found a way to measure the eccentricity of the sun, and
found that it was indeed eccentric, by some small percentage (miles
says 0.00019%).  The point of the article I saw, however, was that the
extra belt of mass around the fatter sun produced some heretofore
unsuspected gravitational effects.  Specifically, the extra mass
provided another explanation for the precession of Mercury around its
orbit.  The explanation of the precession of Mercury, remember, was one
of the great triumphs of General Relativity.  I'm not going to give up
GR until there's another theory that explains other phenomena as well
as GR does, but we might all keep in mind that one of the classical
tests of GR may have been invalidated.
                                Stewart (cobb@mit-mc)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 1982 0758-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: Space in the News
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
To: Space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8] 6-Aug-82 07:58:29.WMARTIN>

From the July 19, '82 issue of Electronic Engineering Times, p. 37:

PENTAGON CREATES USAF SPACE COMMAND (extracts)

The Department of Defense has created the US Air Force Space
Command in response to the increasing use of space for military
purposes.  The new command, to be operational Septemeber 1, will
be part of the Air Force.

The Space Command was established ... to counter advances in
Soviet space systems and strategic weapons via a single
operational command that can carry out US military space policy.

The Pentagon's move follows a long debate with Congress over
whether to rename the US Air Force the US Aerospace Force.
Congress wanted to change the name to sharpen DoD's focus for
space activities, which it felt were lagging behind the Soviet
military effort in space.  ...

Creation of the Space Command is viewed as the first step toward
establishing a unified command involving all other branches of
the military.  This, according to Pentagon sources, is an issue
presently being hotly contested among the various branches of the
service.

The headquarters for the new part of the Air Force will be
located with the Aerospace Defense Command at Colorado Springs,
CO.  Commander of the Space Command will be Lt.  Gen.  James V.
Hartinger, presently commander-in-chief of NORAD as well as head
of the Aerospace Defense Command.  ...

"The purpose of the new command is to provide a focus initially
for operational planning, coordination and consolidation of
activities relating to space-mission areas." ...

The operational and development portions of the Defense Dept.
have often been too far apart, with the users of the systems not
communicating fully with the developers.

More emphasis will be given ...  to incorporating operational
concepts into space-system developments -- systems previously
thought to contain one-of-a-kind characteristics.

Standardization is also a goal of the Space Command.  The desire
to standardize space military systems is a strong one within DoD,
and one which helped to get the Space Command approved.

[Latter portion extracted from comments by retiring USAF chief of
staff General Lew Allen, Jr.]

------------------------------

Date:  6 Aug 1982 1230-CDT
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.Slocum at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Supernovas & Mass Ejection
To: space at MIT-AI

First of all, I'm not sure what "Supernovas blow away NONE of the stellar
mass" was supposed to mean.  Second, let me apologize in advance for the
length of this msg; but we're dealing with a complicated subject which
folks have been discussing at different levels without realizing it.  So...

The debate about how much mass is ejected was originally inspired by the
question of how much mass was left behind, compared to the original mass,
in an effort to guesstimate the observable gravitational effects.  Bearing
that in mind, and bearing in mind that astronomers recognize FIVE different
types of supernovas, we have the following generalization:

	A small, small portion of the original star's mass is converted
	into energy in a couple of weeks' time; the star may radiate more
	energy than several times 10^9 suns.  (Planets within a hundred
	light-years or so will become [almost] sterile.)

	The radiation pressure of this conversion is what compacts the
	central mass, and blows away the rest.

	The "central" remnant of a supernova will usually be a neutron
	star -- this is how these things get created.

	A supernova ejects a large portion of the star's original mass --
	somewhere in the region of 85% give or take plenty.

Therefore, in theory, a change in gravitational WAVE effects will be
measurable one light-time after the event (some mass has been lost; far
more, shuffled around).

However, the gravitational ATTRACTION exerted by the star at that time is
altered only according to the amount of mass that was lost by virtue of
being converted into energy (and which has passed the observation point),
and according to any asymmetry that may have developed in the ejecta shell.
These changes are, practically speaking, negligible.  Only over a LONG
period of time will the attraction change -- depending on the asymmetry of
the ejecta shell and whether any of it has passed the measurement point.

Now, these babies tend to go off a LONG way away (thank goodness!) -- so
far away that there is no hope of measuring the very, very slight
displacements that take place.  If I remember right, none have occured in
our galaxy since 1754.  And, to add more context, the "official" distance
of the Andromeda galaxy was in recent history doubled -- from 1 to 2
million light years -- due to revised measurement techniques.

Even in theory, measuring the displacement requires -- need I say it? --
that one know the ORIGINAL position AND velocity vector of the object being
observed; therefore, it thus requires that one have a LONG time baseline,
since the supernova's shell expands [by interstellar standards] very
slowly.  Ergo, we will not be observing any such displacements very soon.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 6 August 1982  13:42-PDT (Friday)
From: KING at KESTREL
To: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70
Cc: space at Mit-Mc
Subject: FTL: re: Poul Andersons method.

	It's not that non-spherical stars refute the assertion that
space is curved.  It is that possible imperfections in the Sun's shape
could provide an alternate hypothesis as to why Mercury's orbit wasn't
a closed ellipse.  I seem to remember that he discovered some
imperfections in the Sun's shape, but they were'nt enough and his
apparatus's accuracy is subject to question in the scientific
community.


					Dick

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 82 15:16:18-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!eagle!harpo!ihps3!ihnss!knudsen at Ucb-C70
Subject: Supernova, Gravity, Etc
Article-I.D.: ihnss.126
Via:  Usenet; 6 Aug 82 17:27-PDT

HOLD IT!  Basic hih-school physics states that the center of mass
of an object cannot change (or its net momentum change) merely
thru action of forces generated WITHIN that object --
rather, OUTSIDE forces are required.
The example often used is a hand grenade flying thru outer space;
if it explodes, the center-of-gravity/mass of all the fragments
(& gases, etc) continues to move as before.
Substitute a star for the grenade, comes the supernova explosion,
and, presto, the center of mass stays ewhere it was .

I think someone was wondering how much mass of the star would be changed
into ENERGY a la E=mc^2, which *would* cause an instant change in mass.
This change is radically different from the percentage of star matter
that is merely blown away into space -- probably the 50~90% guesses
are close.

PS: If matter and energy are the same thing, and you have a volume of
space with a VERY high energy flux, does it exert gravity
(ie, distort space around it)?
--mike knudsen ihnss!knudsen

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 82 14:43:31-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!eagle!harpo!ihps3!ihuxl!rjnoe at Ucb-C70
Subject: Star Trek newsgroup
Article-I.D.: ihuxl.243
Via:  Usenet; 6 Aug 82 17:37-PDT

     Two months ago, the motion picture "Star Trek II:  The Wrath
of Khan" was released.  As a result of this, the net.movies newsgroup
was deluged with articles on "Star Trek", many (though not all) primarily
concerned with this particular movie.  This condition persisted for
about one month.  Quite a few complaints were registered on net.movies
(and elsewhere) regarding the fact that this one movie could so
rapidly overwhelm that newsgroup by the sheer volume of articles
submitted.  It occurred to me that it was not really the movie itself
but the familiar "'Star Trek' phenomenon" which was responsible for
this effect.  Since the early 1970s, "Star Trek" has had a large and
loyal following, of which a significant portion is by nature interested
in mathematics, the sciences, engineering, computer science, space
exploration, and science fiction.  The exact number of people who
would describe themselves as "Star Trek" fans (trekkies, trekkers, or
otherwise) is of course unknown, but the number of ACTIVE members of
"Star Trek" fan clubs nationwide is measured in the tens of thousands
and probably exceeds one hundred thousand.  This is only the tip of
the iceberg.
     Taking these facts into consideration, I postulated that there
should be a relatively large audience among netnews readers for
"Star Trek".  I have spent recent weeks communicating with others
across the country in an effort to determine whether or not this
audience would be sufficient to justify establishing a new newsgroup
exclusively concerned with "Star Trek".  By all indications this
would seem to be the case.  Because my samplings have been so
encouraging I am now taking the step of soliciting opinions from
the entire body of netnews readers on the existence of a "Star Trek"
newsgroup.  In replying, please consider the following:
     1)  Paramount Pictures has planned a minimum of eight more
         "Star Trek" motion pictures to be released at intervals
         of one year or so.
     2)  While fan activity is certainly highest around the time a
         film is released, it does not disappear between pictures.
         The years 1980 and 1981 witnessed some of the largest "Star
         Trek" fan club enrollments in history.
     3)  The "Star Trek" following appears to be virtually per-
         petual.  In the decade between the production of the last
         "Star Trek" television episode and "Star Trek:  The Motion
         Picture" this following GREW by leaps and bounds even though
         no original "Star Trek" stories were being filmed with
         permission of the copyright owner.  This following sus-
         tained and strengthened itself through discussion of
         existing "Star Trek" episodes ONLY!
     4)  Negotiations for an eventual return of "Star Trek" to a
         television format of some sort are again underway.
     5)  "Star Trek" fans, like their questions and comments, will
         not disappear.  Unless another outlet is supplied, net.movies
         will experience similar congestion with the release of each
         "Star Trek" movie.

I can be contacted by net mail, telephone, or Bell Labs paper mail,
whichever is most convenient for you.  I invite your opinions on the
existence of a "Star Trek" newsgroup as well as what it should be
called (I myself am divided between net.trek and net.startrek),
topics you would like to see discussed on the newsgroup, and any
other comments you feel are relevant.  I will of course summarize
to the net (net.news.group, where I think further discussion should
be confined).  Those on the net whom I have already contacted
personally need not resubmit comments to me (except to amend them).

                                     Roger Noe
      ...!{ihps3,harpo,ihnss,ucbvax,duke,houxi,eagle}!ihuxl!rjnoe
                                  (312) 979-6537
                                  BTL - IH 5B-413

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 82 14:25:57-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!rabbit!ark at Ucb-C70
Subject: FTL?
Article-I.D.: rabbit.668
Via:  Usenet; 7 Aug 82 0:58-PDT

I thought "FTL" meant "Food, Transportation and Lodging"

(I see it in airport directories frequently)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #265    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 265

Today's Topics:
		 Re: re:supernovae & gravity waves - (nf)
		       Re: Supernova, Gravity, Etc
		oblate central masses and orbit precession
		   Comments on Supernova, Gravity, etc.
				 FTL etc.
			    SRB Recovery Plans
			     mass vs. energy
			     quantum and FTL
			     Bell inequality 
			    Space in the News
			    Space in the News
			       FTL general:
			     FTL vs causality
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 82 16:32:01-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!gdw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: re:supernovae & gravity waves - (nf)
Article-I.D.: harpo.928
Via:  Usenet; 7 Aug 82 4:18-PDT


#R:utzoo:-233800:harpo:11700001:000:290
harpo!gdw    Aug  6 16:21:00 1982

I thought that distances were measured using "red shift", viz.
the Doppler shift (toward longer wavelengths) of it's spectrum
due to it's velocity away from Earth caused by the expanding
universe. This velocity times the Hubble constant equals the
distance of the star with good accuracy.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 82 16:09:11-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!floyd!rhm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Supernova, Gravity, Etc
Article-I.D.: floyd.426
Via:  Usenet; 7 Aug 82 5:09-PDT


Re ihnss!knudsen comment.
Again, during a supernova explosion, the change in mass is zero, both
instantaneously and long term. Photons do just as good a job of causing
gravitation as anything else of the same mass.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 82 16:58:31-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: oblate central masses and orbit precession
Article-I.D.: eagle.451
Via:  Usenet; 7 Aug 82 5:18-PDT


It is a well-known (and utilized) fact that a satellite in orbit about
an oblate central body does NOT follow classic two-body motion.
This is because the gravitational field around an oblate body is
dependent on position as well as radius distance from the body's
center.

For example, the earth's oblateness causes the "regression of nodes"
in which the plane of a satellite precesses (rotates) about the earth's
axis; the exact rate is a function of the orbital inclination
(angle with the equator) and the orbit period.  The so-called "sun
synchronous" orbit, in which the NOAA and LANDSAT satellites are
launched, along with amateur radio Oscars 6-9, consists of an
orbital inclination and period such that the plane precesses eastward
exactly once around the earth each year.  This compensates for the
earth's movement around the sun, hence the satellite's orbit plane
remains in a fixed angle with the day/night side terminator.
This means that the satellite cameras always see the same sun angle
on the earth below. ALL earth satellites except those in EXACTLY
polar orbits (inclination = 90 degrees) will precess in this manner.

In addition, the "line of apsides" (orientation of the semi-major
axis of the orbit ellipse WITHIN the orbit plane) rotates as a
function of inclination, orbital period and eccentricity.
The only way the line of apsides will remain fixed in earth orbit
(other than by using a perfectly circular orbit, in which case the "line of
apsides" is undefined) would be to set the inclination exactly equal
to 63.4+ degrees. This is used by the Russian Molniya satellite series,
in order to fix apogee at a high latitude over northern Siberia.

In the case of the planet Mercury, its line of apsides would also
rotate if the sun is indeed oblate, and I suspect that it is simply
due to its slow rotation (~25 day period.)

Phil Karn
Bell Labs Murray Hill

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 82 17:11:54-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!ihps3!ihuxn!gjphw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Comments on Supernova, Gravity, etc.
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.172
Via:  Usenet; 7 Aug 82 5:47-PDT


When you consider the substance of spa

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 7 August 1982  21:30-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: FTL etc.
Cc: webb at CMU-20C, REM at MIT-MC

I agree.  Let's stop talking about faster-than-light devices, attempts
to disprove relativity and quantum mechanics, and so on.  I suspect that
people suggesting such things know very little of the math behind the
theories, and are relying on vague popularizations for their
information.  Please, let's talk about the shuttle and serious attempts
to develop our local space, like colonization of the moon and the L-5
points, and stop sounding like fools.

Jon

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 82 15:52:51-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: SRB Recovery Plans
Article-I.D.: alice.840
Via:  Usenet; 7 Aug 82 18:26-PDT


NASA officials have decided to go ahead and recover parts of
the two SRB's that sank after the launch of STS-4.  Underwater
cameras showed that the boosters had broken up on impact.  One
of the pieces is a 40-foot long section that contains a flight
recorder.  The other booster was more broken up, the biggest
piece being a 6-by-8 foot section containing a stiffener ring
and at least two parachutes.  NASA says that they do not expect
any of the parts to be reusable, but they hope they will shed
some more light on why the SRB's sank after hitting the ocean.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 82 15:18:08-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!floyd!rhm at Ucb-C70
Subject: mass vs. energy
Article-I.D.: floyd.428
Via:  Usenet; 7 Aug 82 19:17-PDT


This is a sample of recent mail.  I am *almost* at a loss for words.
I suppose I could continue pointing out there is no loss of mass
(and by the way no change in center of gravity, despite assymetries)
during a supernova explosion, ad infinitum.

Others will insist that, despite Einstein, mass is not
equivalent to energy and that the notion of mass is identical to
the notion of rest mass, and that the energy of a photon is not
"really" mass for some unspecified reason......

    From harpo!duke!phs!jfh Sat Aug  7 13:21:31 1982
    Date-Sent: Sat Aug  7 11:35:16 1982
    To: duke!harpo!floyd!rhm
    Subject: Re: floyd.426: Re: Supernova, Gravity, Etc

    	Surely you jest!!  Photons have NO mass.  If this were not true,
    then they could not travel at the speed of light.


    						Fran Heidlage
    						duke!phs!jfh

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 82 10:31:20-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!donald at Ucb-C70
Subject: quantum and FTL
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.499
Via:  Usenet; 7 Aug 82 20:47-PDT


I hate to bring up the old quantum mechanics debates again, but
quantum tunneling IS instantaneous, at least in some sense of the
word.  A particle which appears on one side of a potential barrier
at a particular instant can be detected on the other side at some
future instant which is arbitrarily close to the first instant.
(for you diehard quantum theorists out there, I know I'm over-
simplifying, but bear with me...)
There is no "transmission" across the barrier in the usual sense of
the word, not even of "wave function" waves (!) as was suggested in a
previous article.
However, it would appear that as a real FTL mechanism this is useless
because no information can be transmitted.

Sometime ago a French physicist named Aspect was planning an experiment
to test the Bell inequality which might demonstrate the existence of
"correlated space-like events" (sorry for the technese).  This might be
interpreted to represent superluminal (FTL) information transfer between two
points.  Does anyone know how it turned out?

(What do supernovas and gravity propagation have to do with FTL???)

						Don Chan

------------------------------

Date: 07 Aug 1982 2120-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Bell inequality 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The July 30, 1982 Science answers Don Chan's previous question.  p 435:
"Quantum Mechanics Passes Another Test" - French photon polarization
correlation experiment finds strongest violation yet of Bell's inequality.

Score:  Quantum Mechanics - 1, Relativity - 1, Realism - 0   the relativity
part nixes faster than light communication.

------------------------------

Date: 8 August 1982  00:29-EDT (Sunday)
Sender: CARTER at RU-GREEN
From:  Robert A. Carter <CARTER at RUTGERS>
To:   WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
Cc:   CARTER at RUTGERS, Space at MIT-MC
Subject: Space in the News

    Date: Friday, 6 August 1982  10:58-EDT
    From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)

    The Department of Defense has created the US Air Force Space
    Command in response to the increasing use of space for military
    purposes.  The new command, to be operational Septemeber 1, will
    be part of the Air Force.

    The Pentagon's move follows a long debate with Congress over
    whether to rename the US Air Force the US Aerospace Force.
    Congress wanted to change the name to sharpen DoD's focus for
    space activities, which it felt were lagging behind the Soviet
    military effort in space.  ...

"[L]ong debate with Congress"?  Does anyone have any citations to
support that?  I doubt the suggestion was ever really taken very
seriously.

_Bob

------------------------------

Date: 8 August 1982  00:47-EDT (Sunday)
Sender: CARTER at RU-GREEN
From:  Robert A. Carter <CARTER at RUTGERS>
To:   WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
Cc:   CARTER at RUTGERS, Space at MIT-MC
Subject: Space in the News

test

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 82 6:26:02-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70
Subject: FTL general:
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2342
Via:  Usenet; 8 Aug 82 0:56-PDT

 How long is instantaneous time?

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 82 15:50:29-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70
Subject: FTL vs causality
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2350
Via:  Usenet; 8 Aug 82 2:07-PDT

The problem with any FTL transmission of information is that when one
has cause and effect connected by such transmission, from a frame of
reference moving at a suitable speed in a suitable direction the cause
and the effect appear to be reversed.  Instantaneous transmission is
not required.  Any form of FTL information transmission requires either
substantial revision of Special Relativity (which, alas, is on much
firmer ground than the somewhat-dubious General Relativity) or else a
renunciation of the principle that all observers should see cause and
effect working the same way.  Perhaps this principle can be abandoned,
but it is not easy to construct a replacement.  If different observers
can see different series of events when watching the same phenomena,
it's hard to arrange things so that any specific observer is guaranteed
to see a self-consistent series of events.  This has been attempted, by
the tachyon theorists, but the results are somewhat unsatisfying so far.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #266    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 266

Today's Topics:
			  re: Causality and FTL:
			 Re: Re: quantum and FTL
			    Causality and FTL
			   Re: quantum and FTL
			  quantum and FTL, reply
			       Re: FTL etc.
			     Shuttle Landing
		      Equivalence of Mass and Energy
		    Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy
			       Re: FTL etc.
			       Re: FTL etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 82 6:35:32-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70
Subject: re: Causality and FTL:

Lets try the mathematical approach. According to Einstein, re General
Relativity, E=mc^2, as many know. In itself, this is a very simple
equation. c^2 is a constant of 9.00e20 cm/s^2, while the energy function
is in direct proportion to the mass. The bigger the mass, the greater the
energy. (E == ergs , m == g , c == cm/s^2 ).  No matter what the starting
mass is, as its speed increases its "mass increases". The increase or
dilatation is given by, m'=m/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 . As you can see, if v=c, the
function of the two = 1, therefore you get m'=m/0= infinite mass. If you
plug this infinite mass back into the equa. E=mc^2, you get an infinite
amount of energy. But this energy is all the energy in the universe, so if
one dare to travel at the speed of light, or even close to it, (or just a
bit faster, not really because then m'=(-n)^.5 which is undefined to
date), then all the energy in the universe would be used up, and the
universe would "blink" out of existance. This is the primary basis by
which physisists base the "fact" that FTL travel is impossible, and that
anything close to FTL, well the energy requirements are much to great to
be created artificialy. Of course a complete explanation is not as simple,
but i hope this is more appropriate.

(note: the explanation given above is the accepted standard to date,

		Raymond S.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 82 10:59:23-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!donald at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Re: quantum and FTL

Argh.  Here comes a rehash of net.misc of a few months ago.  Quantum
tunneling of a particle through a potential barrier does not involve
"transmission" in the usual sense of the word (I am addressing Raymond,
utzoo!miles) because it does not involve *any* movement of matter or
energy through the gap.  All that happens is that at one moment you see
the particle *here* and the next moment you see it over *there*.  My use
of the phrase "instant of time" has mislead Raymond; it has nothing to do
with instantaneous, it just means "moment in time".  As for my claim that
the process of tunneling is instantaneous in some sense, note that there
is no implicit "transit time" in the appearance of the particle on the
other side of the barrier.  The collapse of the wave function is
instantaneous.  In other words, the events of disappearance and
reappearance are space-like events.  Once again I must apologize for an
oversimplified description of quantum processes.

On the topic of FTL, an interesting philosophical note:  Why are people
so hopeful about the existence of FTL and indifferent about the law of
conservation of energy?  It seems to me that people will bend over backwards
to try and find a loophole in physics or some specious argument that will al-
low FTL to exist, but when it comes to violating energy conservation (e.g.
perpetual motion machines), anyone suggesting it is labelled a crank!

						Don Chan

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 82 1:10:12-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton at Ucb-C70
Subject: Causality and FTL

Does anybody out there have a nice explanation of exactly why FTL travel
of information blows our ideas of causality out of the water?

I remember the explanation given to me in Relativity class years ago, but
I was never entirely satisfied with it.  Admittedly instantaneous
transmission of information destroys the lack of simultanaity in the
universe, but why can we not have something propogating at finite but
FTL speed.  I do have some idea of why this is true, but does anybody
have an explanation that is more straightforward than a couple of years
of physics courses?

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 82 7:31:30-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: quantum and FTL

Quantum tunneling is NOT instantaneous in any sense of the word.  "A
particle which appears on one side of a potential barrier at a particular
instant in time...", the instant in this is a completely different instant
as in 'instantaneous'. The word instant in this statement should be
replaced by 'point in time'. And as for the instantaneous travel, which
would be suggested by no "transmission"...  , it does take the particle
finite time to cross the barrier, the measur e of time is to small to
measure by conventional, standard timing devices, so out of convenience
one says it is "instantaneous", although it is not. It could be measured,
but one would need a very,very acurate timing device. And yes, there is
transmission. The particle is not prese nt at one barrier, and then just
appears at the other barrier.

		Raymond S.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 82 12:52:40-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70
Subject: quantum and FTL, reply

To DC., note, "point in time" and "moment in time" are interchangable.
"instant of time" did not mislead me. If you meant "moment in time", then
why did you not say so.  Could you tell me, and any others that might be
interested, the date or article number, within close proximity of the
article on quantum tunneling that was on net.misc a few months ago.

		Raymond S.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 82 23:50:58-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: FTL etc.

Am I to believe my ears?!  Are you people serious?!  What in the world
would happen if we all took that view?  What would have happened if people
said, ``Hmmm, let's stop talking about this silly theory that the Earth
revolves around the sun and get back to thrashing people who rock the
boat''!  Jes, if we just stopped talking about things that aren't possible
now, where in the world where we be in 100 years?!  Come on, people!

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 82 9:09:38-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Landing

The new director of the STS program, Thomas E. Utsman, said yesterday
that the shuttle would probably not land at KSC until STS-7, now 
scheduled for April, 1983.  He said that everyone would like to go
with KSC starting with STS-5, but ``we don't want to get caught in
the euphoria and do something foolish with a national resource.''

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 82 17:56:57-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!phs!jfh at Ucb-C70
Subject: Equivalence of Mass and Energy

I wish to respond to Bob Morris' comments (floyd.428).  First, however I
want to say that the first sentence of my reply ("Surely you jest!!")  was
unwarranted, and I apologize to him for it.

I have no quarrel with either the assertion that the center of mass does
not change during a supernova explosion (within limits of asymmetries), or
with relativistic mechanics. However, I believe that Morris has made some
erroneous assumptions.

	    "Again, during a supernova explosion, the change in
	     mass is zero, both instantaneously and long term."

Consider the fusion of four hydrogen atoms to form helium.  (I know the
overall reaction is much more complicated than this makes it sound, but
please bear with me.  This is an approximation for illustration only.)
The mass of a hydrogen atom is 1.00797 atomic mass units (amu), so four of
them comprise a total mass of 4.03188 amu.  However, a helium atom has a
mass of only 4.0036 amu.  (data from Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
46th edition) This leaves a difference of 0.02828 amu, which is converted
to energy in accordance with Einstein's equation.  Surely no one will
argue that the mass of four hydrogen atoms is equal to the mass of one
helium atom.


	    "Photons do just as good a job of causing gravitation
	     as anything else of the same mass."

This is the statement to which my original reply was directed.  Photons
have no REST mass; hence the are able to move at the speed of light.  I
believe that this is a requirement for any entity which can attain this
velocity, since it can be demonstrated that any massive body would require
infinite energy input to reach light speed.  I certainly do not deny that
photons possess energy, and that this energy is equivalent to a certain
mass.

However, while I acknowledge that energy and mass are equivalent, it
appears to me that Morris is claiming that energy and mass are the SAME.
It is not at all clear to me that this is a defensible position. Does a
body composed of a certain number and type of particles become more
massive if it is strongly heated (vibrational energy is presumably also
equivalent to mass)?  The crux of the matter seems to reside in the
(paraphrased) question asked by Mike Knudson (ihnss.126), "Does energy
exert gravity?"  Specifically, is it possible for photons to emit
gravitons, or is this property reserved to those particles with non-zero
rest mass?

It is equally unclear that I have illuminated the situation at all.  One
could presumably argue in the fusion example that as long as you were able
to contain all the energy in a closed system things haven't really
changed.  Does the ability to emit gravitons "define" mass?  Comments on
these questions or on my interpretation of the arguments are welcome.
Although I saw the announcement of net.physics a few minutes ago, I am
also posting this to net.space also, just in case.


						Fran Heidlage
						duke!phs!jfh

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 82 22:19:39-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!floyd!rhm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy
Article-I.D.: floyd.429
Via:  Usenet; 9 Aug 82 0:56-PDT


O.K. I will reply specifically to duke!phs!jfh

1.  If four hydrogen atoms conspire somehow to form a helium atom, then
    the mass of the helium is exactly that of the hydrogen atoms.

2.  Mass and energy are the same.

3.  Yes, the mass of a collection of particles increases if they are heated.

4.  Energy exerts gravity.

Altogether, rest mass doesn't have much do with anything.

These positions may or may not be defensible, but I will let any physics
text do the defending for me.  They are hardly disputed questions.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 82 23:18:45-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!pyuxbb!mkg at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: FTL etc.
Article-I.D.: pyuxbb.189
Via:  Usenet; 9 Aug 82 1:36-PDT

References: sri-unix.2539

I have two comments for those who think FTL is "impossible"
  1) Someone once said that if man was meant to fly,
     God would have given him wings.

  2) "The only things that are impossible are those which
     have not yet been perfected" ( forget where I heard this).

Please, lets not be so narrow minded.
   Marsh Gosnell  BTL Piscataway  (201) 981-2758  npois!pyuxbb!mkg

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 82 13:39:38-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!donald at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: FTL etc.
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.507
Via:  Usenet; 9 Aug 82 2:36-PDT

References: alice.842


There is a big difference between informed discussion and wild speculation.
The recent slew of articles on FTL fall into the latter category:  the
people out to "get" relativity and quantum mechanics have very little
knowledge of how they work.  They merely seem to take notions gleaned from
SF and popular science magazines to try a find a loophole in physics so
that their pet peeve (FTL travel) is "possible".  No attempt is made to
formalize their arguments mathematically or replace the physical theories
that they demolish.  THAT is the diffence between Galileo and Erich
Von Daniken, or between Einstein and Velikovsky.  The scientific crank's
favorite defence is a comparison between himself and Copernicus and a plea
for "free inquiry" or "open minds".

Sorry for the flames, but I don't wish to see net.space go the way of
net.misc (you people with the persistence to stick with net.misc should
know what I mean!)

					Don Chan

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #267    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 267

Today's Topics:
		     Slower Than Light Travel and SF
		Philosophical note on disproving theories
			 Supernova, Gravity, Etc
		    Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #266
		     red-shift & distance measurement
		    Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy
		Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy - (nf)
				 Perseids
				 Re: FTL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  9 Aug 1982 0338-PDT
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI> <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Slower Than Light Travel and SF
To: space at MIT-MC
Reply-To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI


There's a novel (Rails Accross the Galaxy) being serialized in ANALOG
magazine that discusses a means of interstellar transportation I have
never heard of before.  It violates no known laws of physics, although
it does require fantastic engineering developments.

Say you are a million year civilization that wants to trade with its
interstellar neighbors.  The costs of using convention spaceships are
too large to substain the volume of traffic you want (either you have
to spend a fantastic amount of energy getting up to lightspeed or you
wait forever).  So what do you do?  You build a railroad!

Lasers apparently can be made self focusing if the power densities are
sufficiently high.  "Sufficiently high" means the power output of a
star.  Given that, you simply project a set of beams accross space.
These are your "rails."  They "terminate" at black holes, which can
bend them sufficiently so that each rail actually forms a closed loop.
Now your ship simply draws power from the rails by interacting with
the raditaion of the rails.  Do it right, and balance the traffic, and
you can do the skyhook trick - ships take power out of the rails when
they accelerate, then give it back while decelerating.  Your energy
loses are the only cost you have to pay, and its a lot cheaper than
using a reaction drive!

Of course, the capital costs are high (you have to convert whole stars
into energy to set up the rails), but you can depreciate over a
million years and a thousand stars.

Any studies done of this interesting concept?

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 9 August 1982 10:36-EDT
From: John G. Aspinall <JGA at MIT-MC>
Subject: Philosophical note on disproving theories
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC
cc: JGA at MIT-MC

    (From SPACE Digest V2 #266 )

    On the topic of FTL, an interesting philosophical note:  Why are people
    so hopeful about the existence of FTL and indifferent about the law of
    conservation of energy?  It seems to me that people will bend over backwards
    to try and find a loophole in physics or some specious argument that will al-
    low FTL to exist, but when it comes to violating energy conservation (e.g.
    perpetual motion machines), anyone suggesting it is labelled a crank!

						Don Chan

This is an interesting point you raise.  I believe the difference is
in the utility of the two theories.  Conservation of energy is used
over and over by chemists, biologists, engineers, and many others to
design and analyze large parts of our daily lives.  It works.  It
works, for many, not because it is "proved" in Chapter 1 of Goldstein
[ask anyone who took a basic classical dynamics course], but because
they (chemists, etc.)  see their results confirmed every day.

From the miles-per-gallon estimates for your automobile to the
recommended caloric intake of a marathon runner; from the wattmeter
measuring your utility usage to the "R" value of the insulation that
you install to cut those bills down: conservation of energy enters the
analysis.  If conservation of energy was broken, violated, or even
relaxed, there would be a hell of a lot of unexplained things going on.

Faster Than Light travel (FTL), on the other hand, doesn't impact our
daily lives in nearly the same way.  Oh, there are a few examples: I
work on a Cray-1, and I've been told that its speed is limited by the
speed of light transmission time, but frankly, that is of intellectual
interest only.  The theory has much less utility in my daily life.

A good counter example to reinforce the point - I bet if you talk to
physicists who really depend on the speed of light in their work,
you'll find them as ardent defenders of the speed of light as they are
of conservation of energy.

John Aspinall.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 1982 11:13 PDT
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Supernova, Gravity, Etc
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: knudsen at Ucb-C70, Wedekind.es

	This is in response to Mike Knudsen' comment that a supernova's
center of mass (more precisely, the path that the center of mass follows)
remains unchanged by the explosion.

	This doesn't mean that the gravitational force on external bodies
remains unchanged.

	The gravitational force DOES stay the same in the special case where
the exploding mass retains a spherically symmetrical density, as Newton first
showed.  In particular, it's the same as if all the mass were at the CM.

	But in the general case it can get bigger or smaller, and change
direction too.  You can see all this if you imagine simple cases (where the
star splits in half, for instance, and one half lands on your doorstep!).
The galaxies where we see jets shooting off across the line of sight - they're
not pulling on us quite as hard as they used to.  This isn't surprising, since
CM is linear with position and gravity force isn't.

						cheers,
							Jerry

	   

	

------------------------------

Date:  9 Aug 1982 at 1241-PDT
From: Andrew Knutsen <knutsen@SRI-UNIX>
To: decvax!duke!phs!jfh at Ucb-C70
cc: space at Mit-Mc
Subject: Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy
In-reply-to: Your message of 8 Aug 82 17:56:57-PDT (Sun).
Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX

	Actually I seem to recall even the energy of a gravitational
field is supposed to exert gravity...  this produces some hairy
math in gravitational theory.

------------------------------

Date:  9-Aug-82 13:37:16 PDT (Monday)
From: Trigoboff at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #266
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 09 Aug 1982 0303-PDT
To: Space at MIT-MC

I also think it's time to take this faster-than-light/quantum-physics
science fiction discussion off of the Space distribution list.

	Mike

------------------------------

Date:  9 Aug 1982 1448-CDT
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.Slocum at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: red-shift & distance measurement
To: space at MIT-AI

Using red-shift to compute distance does not work within the Local
Group (= Milky Way, Andromeda, Magellanic Clouds, etc.) -- in other
words, not anywhere close to here -- because these galaxies are
gravitationally bound, pursuing orbits around a common center, and
hence are not expanding in the sense defined by Hubble.

Cepheid variables (whose intrinsic luminosities are mathematically
related to their periods of variation) are used to calculate distances
in these ranges.  The discovery that there are two different types
(technically, "populations") of Cepheid variables is what led to the
revision of the "measured" distance to Andromeda, among others, some
years ago.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 1982 15:37 PDT
From: BollenG.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy
In-reply-to: floyd.429 of 09 Aug 1982 0303-PDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: BollenG.es

It's very difficult to discuss issues in quantum physics via
pontification, and even more difficult when one neglects to define one's
terms.  I found Floyd's four-point message not only unnecessarily high and
mighty, but equally difficult to understand.

When fusion takes place, all of the constituent atoms must be in high
kinetic states in order to get close enough together to fuse.  The end
products of the fusion must then also be in high energy states.  The end
products of this reaction are He, plus some very fast moving neutrinos.
The neutrinos shoot off into oblivion, carrying some of the mass of the
constituent 4 Hydrogen atoms, while the exited He sits and radiates
photons until it gets down to its ground-state energy.  So, the mass of
the final product is equal to the sum-mass of the constituents minus the
equivalent energy that leaves with the radiated photons, minus the
relativistic mass of the neutrinos that are also produced in the fusion.
It is neither accurate nor complete to simply say that the mass of the
Helium is exactly the mass of the 4 Hydrogens.

The above may add a bit of clarity to the first of floyd's four axioms,
the other three seem to me to be even less meaningful than the first.  So
i won't comment unless queried..... but may i suggest that for a complete
discussion of these and myriad other physical phenom's (as well as some
very entertaining reading) that the physics text to look at would be
Feynman's Lectures in Freshman Physics.

Feynman was a Pontiff extraordinaire!

		Gregfish. 

------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 82 10:16:08-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!gdw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy - (nf)
Article-I.D.: harpo.933
Via:  Usenet; 9 Aug 82 18:57-PDT

#R:phs:-64800:harpo:11700002:000:259
harpo!gdw    Aug  9 09:59:00 1982

I'm lost! I thought 4 hydrogen atoms do have MORE mass than a helium atom.
That is how hydrogen bombs work, isn't it? So perhaps those arguing
the mass issue could be more specific; are we talking rest mass or
"dialated" mass if the helium is more energetic?

------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 82 17:52:09-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Perseids
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2511
Via:  Usenet; 10 Aug 82 1:06-PDT

Just a reminder to all of you out there that the Perseids meteor shower
will be peaking this week.  Grab your blankets or lawn chairs and check
it out.  Now for the bad news.  First, peak activity is calculated to be
during the daylight hours of the 12th (Thursday).  Second, the moon will
be last quarter on the 12th, making serious observation after midnight
impossible.  Nonetheless, if the weather is good, and you have dark
skies around, enjoy the display.  Best bet should be Wednesday or Thursday
night, although if you're out this weekend, keep your eyes open...

						David Bryant
						 cbosg!djb

Hint: Point your blanket or chair toward the northeast.  With good
      conditions you could see 15 to 25 meteors an hour (maybe more, you
      never know about these things).

------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 82 10:42:51-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: FTL
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.430
Via:  Usenet; 10 Aug 82 2:27-PDT



     I have heard some serious scientific talk about FTL.  I am currently 
trying to track down something definite, as so far all I've heard has been
just enough to whet my appetite.  Someone mentioned an article in Science
Digest.  That article was written by Alan Holt, who if memory serves, recently
left NASA's Johnson Space Center to run his own consulting firm.
    When I find something, I'll post it.  I'd like to see *serious* discussion
about FTL, not things that should be on sf-lovers, and also I'd like these
to see some restraint used by the supposedly educated people who have been
treating the whole idea of FTL with the same attitude as the Inquisition 
treated Galileo.  The one thing education (esp. physics) should teach is that
cherished, time-honored ideas fall by the wayside as our understanding of the
Universe expands.  There is no way of telling where the new ideas will come
from.  If all that comes of the study of FTL is that it is proved conclusively
that it can't be done, then something valuable has still come of it.  Along
the way, perhaps we'll learn something valuable about the laws of physics.
    Perhaps we should move the truly serious discussion of FTL to net.physics.


                            els[Eric Strobel]
                            pur-ee!pur-phy!els

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #268    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 268

Today's Topics:
			Re FTL, "slew of articles"
		       Looping holes through FTL??
		   laser "railroads" using black holes
			  we know how to go FTL
		       more subjects for discussion
				FTL, etc.
			    physics discussion
		Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy - (nf)
		    Arianespace Moves to Corner Market
		    Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy
		Re: Relativistic travel and time dilation
			      Shuttle Costs
			      FTL -- A Paper
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 82 12:55:18-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re FTL, "slew of articles"

 In reply to Don Chan's message from Sun Aug 8, What slew of articles. There
have been some, but not to many. I assure you, (is it neccessary?) FTL is not
my pet peeve, and i am not trying to disprove it or relativity in any way.
If i have given that impression, i apologize. 

		Raymond S.

	p.s. I am not at all unknowledgable to the theories and mathematics
	     involved!

------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 82 21:43:06-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!houti!trc at Ucb-C70
Subject: Looping holes through FTL??

	Something I have wondered/speculated about, with regard to the
arguement that  the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit due to
the fact that the mass side of the equation becomes infinite at C.

	Is it possible that a time factor needs to be considered?
The sort of thing Im thinking of is that, so many factors are going
to extremes at the S.O.L., a cancellation effect similar to, say,
an integral of X/f(X) as X and f(X) both approach infinity, but
the ratio of X to F(X) becomes nearly zero.

	For example, the Infinite Mass effect might be related to
relative passage of time slowing towards zero as the S.O.L. is
approached.

	I realize that this is very vague and fuzzy, so please, no
flames - responsible replies would be appreciated.

			houti!trc

------------------------------

Date: 10 August 1982 0447-PDT (Tuesday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: laser "railroads" using black holes
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MC

I understand that Amtrak was working on a project like this for
implementation around 2300 A.D. or so, but, budgets being the
way they are, the project was terminated recently.

--Lauren--

P.S.  Just as an aside, I recently had the funding pulled for
my matter transmission/reception project.  The transmitter works
great, but now I don't know how I'll ever get all of
the flies... uh, bugs out of the receiver.

--LW--

------------------------------

Date:  9 Aug 1982 21:12:02 EDT (Monday)
From: John Redford <dm.jlr at BBN-RSM>
Subject: we know how to go FTL
To: space at MIT-AI
Cc: vlsi at dec-marlboro

Interstellar travel is not difficult because of special relativity; it's
difficult because space is big.  In fact, special relativity makes things
easier, not harder.  Although the ground observer never sees the spaceship
go faster than c, time dilation makes the person on board think he's going
much faster than light.  An Earth-perceived velocity of .99c is seen
on-ship as going seven light-years/year.

Now, the real critierion for space travel is how much energy you have to
put in to go a certain speed.  By Newtonian mechanics that's

En = (1/2)mv^2

In SR the kinetic energy goes into the difference between the moving mass
and the rest mass.

Ee = (c^2)(Mmoving - Mrest) = (c^2)(Mrest)((1/[(1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5]) - 1)

  = (c^2)(Mrest)([(1 + (V^2/c^2))^0.5] - 1)

where v = the Earth measured velocity
  and V = the spaceship's perceived velocity

(I know this is nearly unreadable without subscripts and superscripts). 
If you work out how energy each takes to accelerate a unit mass you get:

V/c    |  .1 |  .3 |  1  |  3  | 10  |  30 | 100 |
-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Ee/En  | .99 | .97 | .82 | .46 | .18 | .06 | .02 | 

So the faster you go the more the time dilation helps you.  You only need
a fiftieth of the energy to go a 100c in SR than you do in ordinary mechanics.
Of course the folks at home are getting old and gray while you're out
cruising the galaxy, but that shouldn't stop true pioneers.  America was 
settled by people who never expected to see their homeland again.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 1982 1130-MDT
From: Pendleton at UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: more subjects for discussion
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, Pendleton at UTAH-20
In-Reply-To: Your message of 10-Aug-82 0403-MDT

   While I enjoy the FTL discussion I would rather see messages about things
like single stage shuttles, small business in space, the space related 
activities you folks out in net land are involved in, what the local 
chapters of your professional societies did for space week this year,
and what space related activities are going on in your local high schools, 
colleges, and universities.

      Bob Pendleton

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 1982 1157-PDT
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: FTL, etc.
To: space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

It seems to me that the usenet people are completely unaware that this
digest also goes to the Arpanet.  They refer to this digest as net.space
and talk about moving discussions to net.physics and net.misc.  The
FTL/quantum physics discussion SHOULD be moved to one of these lists because
it is not appropriate to the Space mailing list (at least the Arpanet 
version).  When the Space digest was set up, there was concern that we would
start discussing FTL or other "Science Fiction" ideas instead of space.  The
general consensus seemed to be at that time that we ought to stick to space
related topics.

I am extremely interested in FTL and quantum mechanics "philosophy."  I
am in my 6th year of graduate school in Physics, and am working in 
Quantum Field Theory.  I have TA'd upper division quantum mechanics courses. 
The trouble is that there is a large amount of misunderstanding about the
subject when you deal with it in a non mathematical way.  In my opinion
based on my knowledge, greater than 90% of the discussion on the subject
in this digest has been total nonsense, or at best extremely ill defined
and misleading.  So, even though I am intensely interested in the subject,
I have very little desire to discuss the topic "at the layman level" in
a digest form, and certainly not in the Space digest.

It is important to keep ones mind open.  It is even more important to 
approach new ideas skeptically.  There is no shortage of "crackpot" ideas
which sound OK to very intelligent people, if they do not have the
technical knowledge with which to analyze it.  In particular, the stuff
Alan Holt has written is very probably nonsense.  I say very probably,
because in the two papers I have read by him, he spends a long time leading
up to his idea for FTL, then mentions that it exists without giving
any real justification, then spends a long time telling why we should fund
such a project.  So I guess its possible he has something, and is keeping
it very secret, but I doubt it.

Sorry for the long message, but being involved in the field (which I am
actually in in the hope of maybe finding a FTL drive or something like
it someday) I am concerned with the way certain "facts" have been thrown
about even to "prove" that ESP exists!  So please, lets move this kind
of discussion off the Space mailing list.

				Alan (Katz@ISIF)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 1982 at 1448-PDT
From: Andrew Knutsen <knutsen@SRI-UNIX>
To: space at Mit-Mc
Subject: physics discussion
Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX

	If any arpanet people would like to participate
in the physics discussion, which has been moved to net.physics
on usenet, send me a note and Ill put you on a list.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 82 8:56:47-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: G.wing at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy - (nf)

I would like to add another note to the other response to this set. (This
should be titled Re: Re; Equivalence of Mass and Energy - (nf))
I thought it took only TWO deuterium or triterium (what ever) atoms to create
one helium atom, with the extra neutrons flying off to make a fusion torch?

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 82 12:48:32-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Arianespace Moves to Corner Market

[From the August 9, 1982 issue of Amsat Satellite Report]

Arianespace is the European consortium formed to market the launch
services of the Ariane rocket developed by ESA, the European Space
Agency.  An intense competition has evolved between Arianespace and
the US Space Shuttle.  The competition is for customers.  Satellite
builders/users are highly critical of the Shuttle claiming that they
can place their payloads in orbit far less expensively using Ariane
than the shuttle.  This despite the fact that the Ariane is
expendable (not reusable) and the shuttle can be reused at least a
hundred times or more.  U.S. authorities counter that massive
government subsidies in terms of very favorable financing agreements
are the main factor in tilting the balance toward Ariane.  What ever
the real reason may be Arianespace has been enormously effective in
marketing its launch services despite the setback on LO2 and the
current delays resulting from a payload design problem.  The problem
with the payloads is not a result of any factor in the launch
vehicle itself but rather the so-called "plasma sheath" problem
which arose on MARECS-A (See ASR #30).
Evidently the commercial satellite folks are confident enough in
Ariane to place hundreds of millions of dollars in hardware and
launch fees on the line.  In just the first five months of 1982
Arianespace booked 10 new launches bringing their bookings to 24.
The business boom has caused Arianespace to redouble their efforts
at Kourou, French Guiana to complete the second launch pad.  Current
plans call for operations from the second pad to commence in 1985.
Recent additions to the Ariane bookings include Direct Broadcast
Satellite (DBS) Corp., Telesat Canada, Swedish Space Corp.,
INTELSAT, CNES United Satellite Limited (UK).  Thanks KA1M.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 82 14:30:21-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy

I find it amazing that this correspondence continues: not because of the
exchange itself, but because of the amazing willingness of netnews
correspondents to make "ex cathedra" statements based on little information
and less understanding.  There is simply no way for the interested but
naive reader to separate the statements of those who understand what's
going on from those who glibly state misinformation as fact.

Naivete with regard to relativistic physics is, perhaps,
something we can expect in the netnews community: only a small fraction
are physicists.  Indeed, were I a professional physicist I would be either
outraged or fatally amused at some of the drivel we have seen recently;
as a mere interested layman I feel a little of both.

What I find frightening is the same kind of behavior within the computer
science domain, where we might expect some measure of professional competence.

The network has great potential for educating us all; we (the users) are
a diverse lot: we have highly varied backgrounds and avocations, as
demonstrated by the proliferation of non-cs interest groups.  The net can be
a fine resource, especially for the kind of queries we so often see for
information about a specific topic.

The net is also, in the words of one of my colleagues, "the world's largest
graffitti wall."

So, this is the plea: if you have genuine, reliable information, please
contribute it to the net.  If not, stop talking and start listening:
you might learn something.

=Ned Horvath=

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 82 17:17:06-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Relativistic travel and time dilation

John Redford's comments about special relativity and space travel
gave me a chuckle.  While the folks back home WILL be getting old and
grey, the 'true pioneers' who are 'cruising the galaxy' at a perceived
velocity of 100c will get something, too...  That tenuous interstellar
hydrogen will be perceived to them as high energy (relativistic) protons!

Anyone got a solution to keep those pioneers from being 'crispy-crittured'?
You might set up a magnetic shield (like the magnetic "mirror" of fusion
reactor fame) to stop CHARGED particles, but you won't stop the starlight
that's doppler-shifted up into the x-ray or gamma-ray region!

                                  - Steve Robinson
                                    NYU
					..!eagle!ajll11!robinson

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 82 17:54:48-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Costs

NASA says that it won't break even on the STS program until at
least 1989.  The problem is that, due to soaring inflation, shuttle
flights now cost over $200 million, while they charge customers
a little over $30 million to rent space on board.  Adding to that
cost is $30 million to replace an engine that blew up this past
April in a test and the fact that each flight can only carry 40,000
pounds of cargo, not 55,000, and this will be even less when it
is launched from California.  The GAO told Congress that the entire
shuttle program is expected to top $21 billion.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 82 11:11:43-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Ucb-C70
Subject: FTL -- A Paper
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.431
Via:  Usenet; 11 Aug 82 2:47-PDT


    As promised, here is something that I've come up with.  The Science Digest
article by Alan Holt was based on a paper he presented in 1980. The citation is:
       Holt, A.C., "Prospects for a Breakthrough in Field Dependent
         Propulsion",  AIAA-80-1233,  AIAA/SAE/ASME 16th Joint Pro-
         pulsion Conference,  1 July 1980.


    So far I have been unable to obtain a copy of this.  If anyone has any 
ideas on getting it, please mail to me.


                        els[Eric Strobel]
                        pur-ee!pur-phy!els

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #269    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 269

Today's Topics:
			  recent FTL discussion
				 FTL etc.
	 comments on the finite propogation speed of gravitation
			  A little less than FTL
		  Hard radiation and interstellar flight
				   FTL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 11 August 1982  10:46-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: recent FTL discussion
Cc: webb at CMU-20C

The last issue of Space@MC contained one comment that FTL etc. should be
removed from Space@MC, one note about the Perseid shower, and all the
rest about quantum mechanics/FTL/(etc.) stupidity.  In other words,
there was just one message related to what Space@MC is supposed to be
about, and all the rest irrelevant.  A lot of these useless messages
seem to be forwarded from people at UCB-70, which I think means they're
coming from USENET (Net.Space), probably automatically forwarded.  I've
tried replying directly to these people but the messages don't seem to
go the other way.  Can we stop the automatic forwarding of messages from
Net.Space until the current discussion dies down, or at least publish a
way of sending messages the other way, so we can flame directly at the
generators of these messages?

Jon

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 11 August 1982  15:38-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: FTL etc.
Cc: webb at CMU-20C

BTW, if you really want to understand relativity, there are two good
books to start with:

Relativity and Common Sense, by Hermann Bondi

The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by Lillian and Hugh Lieber

Neither book uses much math beyond calculus.  I suspect that anyone,
after reading these books, can make sense out of the original papers
with some effort.  I don't have a reference for quantum mechanics; I
suspect the math is quite a bit harder.

Jon

------------------------------

Date: 11 August 1982 19:01-EDT
From: Richard Pavelle <RP at MIT-MC>
Subject: comments on the finite propogation speed of gravitation
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC
cc: RP at MIT-MC

It seems the necessary arguments have been given for the finite
propogation speed of gravity. Let me add some comments:
(I am purposely oversimplifiying some things below so no nit-picking please)
As in the electromagnetic case, gravitational radiation has two
modes. There is a radiative field and an inductive field. The
kind of radiation supposedly measured by Joe Weber and company is 
radiative caused by some non-spherically symmetric large scale
event and predicted by Einstein's general relativity. Weber's detectors 
were sufficiently sensitive to detect the inductive field caused by the 
gravitational field of trucks passing by. Both fields propogate with
velocity C.

On a related matter, in the 1890's there was a high school teacher
in Germany by the name of Paul Gerber. He theorized that the gravitational
potential was velocity dependent. He was interested in explaining
the anomalous advance of the perihelion of Mercury (the 43 seconds/century
unaccounted for by Newtonian theory). He reasoned as follows: Suppose
that in an elliptical orbit such as Mercury's the gravitational
force increases more than the 1/r^2 factor when the planet is
approaching the sun owing to a velocity dependent potential. Then
the planet speeds up more than one expects at perihelion and slows
down more at aphelion. He published several papers on this and
came up with a remarkable differential equation from the equations
of motion.  Standard general relativity gives the orbital equation as 

u'' + u - m/h^2 = 3 m u^2

where u=1/r and r is radial component, ' is differentiation with
respect to the angular variable in polar coordinates, m is the 
gravitational mass of the attracting body, and h is angular velocity 
of the planet. 

Gerber found the following:

u'' + u - m/h^2 =  - 6 m u u''

The left hand sides are the classical Newtonian equations for the inverse
square law while the right hand sides represent the theories "perturbing
term". An interesting point is that both differential equations give precisely
the same value for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury (to order m^2 the
solutions are identical).  And note, Gerber gave this some 20 years before 
Einstein! 

Pauli (Theory of Relativity, Page 169) dismisses poor Gerber in 6 lines.
One bad aspect of Gerber's theory is that it cannot predict an anomolous
(non-classical) effect for a circular orbit whereas general relativity does. 
However, for anyone who is interested, Gerber's papers have alot of 
equations that look like those of special relativity and general 
relativity. Any interested persons can contact me directly for references, etc.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 82 8:24:51-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: G.wing at Ucb-C70
Subject: A little less than FTL

Just as a computational question, how fast does the fellow in the "Discovery"
ad go when he says he goes at the speed of light, which is impossible.  Seems
that he is going pretty close to it though.  Please respond by mail and ...
NO FLAMES, PLEASE!!!

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 1982 0053-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Hard radiation and interstellar flight
To: space at MIT-MC


Of course X-Rays and gamma rays are no problems - they are electromagnetic
radiation, do can be deflected.  The physical particles are the hard ones-
especially the uncharged ones.  You probably need two feilds - one to
charge them and another to deflect them.

Jim

-------

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 1982 0055-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: FTL
To: space at MIT-MC


Right.  People who do not know much about realitivity really should not
act like they do.  We would not stand anything similar if it were
computer related.

Jim

PS if people really want to divide things into "fact" and "speculation"
   (although I am not sure the distinction is very meaningful), then
   people may want to send the speculation to SF-LOVERS@SRI-CSL.

-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #270    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 270

Today's Topics:
			   Content Controversy
	Quantum mechanics for those who don't really want to know
			    physics discussion
		  Recent flames about recent discussions
			 Content Controvercy    
			    Shuttle Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To:   space at MIT-MC  
Date: 12 August 1982 1423-PDT (Thursday)
From: m.andrews at UCLA-Security (Richard Andrews)
Subject: Content Controversy

     I'd just like to respond to a lot of the comments flying around on this
digest concerning what belongs and what does not.

     I've only been on this mailing list for about a month, and in that time
there have been an awful lot of messages supposedly explaining scientific
theories and phenomena, many of them contradictory.  For example, I recall
messages stating explicitly that it IS possible to tell gravitation from
acceleration, and that it IS NOT possible to tell gravitation from acceleration.
     Now I've had a couple of semesters of physics, but I'm a computer 
scientist with a strong interest in the topics that this digest is supposed to
be addressed to.  I can't follow a lot of the physics presented here, but I
think I could learn something if it is presented clearly by someone who knows
what they're talking about.  Speculation is fine if it is presented as such.

					Rich Andrews
					andrews@ucla-security

------------------------------

Date: 12-Aug-82 16:58:59 PDT (Thursday)
From: Karlton at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Quantum mechanics for those who don't really want to know
To: space at MIT-MC
Reply-To: Karlton at PARC-MAXC

A nice introduction for those who are too lazy to do any mathematics may
be found in "Taking the Quantum Leap", by Fred Alan Wolf.

PK

------------------------------

Date: 12 August 1982 20:03-EDT
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW at MIT-MC>
Sender: SASW0 at MIT-MC
Subject:  physics discussion
To: knutsen at SRI-UNIX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, SASW at MIT-MC

Please add me to any discussion and/or mailing list which covers FTL
topics.  Even though I think that most of the messages on this topic
have been nonsense, this is @i(exactly) the sort of topic which SPACE
should cover!

-- Steve

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 82 13:00:08-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: G.wing at Ucb-C70
Subject: Recent flames about recent discussions
Article-I.D.: populi.290
Via:  Usenet; 12 Aug 82 17:58-PDT

It does seem a little mundane that theory can not be discussed on net.space.
It's getting kind of warm around here from the amount of flaming about the
discussions about things that are not possible at this time.  The items being
batted about DO NOT belong in net.sf-lovers because the discussions are
philosophy and theory, not pure imagination.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 1982 0133-PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
Subject: Content Controvercy    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I guess its time to put in my Editorial Two Cents.

I think the Meta-Discussion on the relevance of Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics is probably complete.  It seems (to me at least) that these
topics are of sufficient relevance and of sufficiently general interest
that they are appropriate topics for discussion on Space Enthusiasts.  Its
possible that they may be more appropriate on net.physics.  But in any
case, it is definitely not my intention to start censoring such articles
from Space-Enthusiasts.

It is a valid point that has already been made that disproving Relativity
and Quantum in this sort of a forum is almost certainly misguided.  For
the most part these theories are so well grounded in experiment that they
are not really open to question at the level that this List can reach.
This is should not be construed as a closed minded attitude, but simply a
realistic one.  If you are going to question the validity of such firmly
established theories it very much behooves you to know them inside and
out.  It should be clear that this List is not a reasonable forum for the
detailed, rigorous and mathematical arguments that would be necessary to
seriously question one of these theories.

The observations of several people that the "statements" on these topics
have been mutually contridictory are correct.  I've never known a
discussion between real (non-idealized) people to be free of such
problems.  I doubt that the Space List will break new ground in this area.
Still it doesn't hurt to chastise the people who seem to be spreading
incorrect information and to ask for clarification, confirmation, AND
REFERENCES.  I will join others in asking people to check on their
information before sending it off to Space.  The last few messages that
point to good introductory texts in these areas are a very welcome item.

I should clarify here that I do not mean to suggest that all messages
about quantum mechanics etc. are unreasonable.  General questions and
answers, and interesting applications and results are all appropriate.  As
a practical matter allowing these also means allowing the whole raft of
claims, conflicting counter claims, denouncements, and the general
confusion that inevitably results.  Unless we want to outlaw the
discussion of all complicated subjects we have to put up with this.  It
seems to be the price we pay for interacting in such a public forum.

On the issue of Usenet and net.space etc, I'm afraid I can't say much.  It
is appearently well known that usenet addresses to not work forwards and
backwards.  That is to say you can't always reply to usenet messages.  I
don't really have any suggestions in this regard.  I ASSUME that the
usenet people are working to correct this deficiency.

	The Moderator,
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 82 18:07:03-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Operations
Article-I.D.: alice.854
Via:  Usenet; 13 Aug 82 1:37-PDT

The space shuttle Columbia is well on its way to its scheduled
11 November launch, a NASA spokesman said today.  Work being
done on it, including removing the RMS (it won't be used this
flight), installing two more seat, fixing up some 400 tiles,
fixing the toilet, etc. is scheduled to be completed on 10
September, at which time it will be rolled to the VAB for
attachment to its external tank and SRB's.  The preparations
for Challenger's first flight are not going so smoothly.  For
one thing, there have been delays in getting the main engines
and other parts from their manufacturers.  Officials are hopeful
that they will have it ready for launch in January, but they are
not sure.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #271    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 271

Today's Topics:
			   Content Controversy
			    Re: Shuttle Costs
		       Re: SPACE Digest V2 #270    
	  oops on previous msg, plus physics list administrivia
			     Perseid Question
			    physics discussion
				Yager Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Friday, 13 August 1982  06:11-EDT
From: Vince Fuller <VAF at CMU-20C>
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject: Content Controversy

Hmm. Not knowing a lot about physics, I must admit that I don't really follow
some of the discussions and agree with m.anderws about how nice it would be if
those who know would be so kind as to explain simply to those of us who don't.
I don't mind reading the speculations, tho, and really don't think that they
should be eliminated - I mean really, this list gets pretty slow when no one
has any random topic to discuss and there isn't a shuttle launch pending, so
why not a little speculating to make things more interesting?

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 1982 at 2300-CDT
From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 
Subject: Re: Shuttle Costs
To: space at mit-mc


  $30 million for one SSME? Really?!
-------

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 1982 at 1201-PDT
From: Andrew Knutsen <knutsen@SRI-UNIX>
To: Space-Enthusiasts at Mit-Mc
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #270    
In-reply-to: Your message of 13 Aug 1982 0302-PDT.
Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX

	I received about 20 requests, so the list "Physics@SRI-Unix"
now exists. Hopefully this will redirect some of the not-entirely-
relevant material. Requests to Physics-request@SRI-Unix.
	The problem with replies to usenet sites is somewhat of a
mystery to me too, since it works for me (except in pathological cases
caused by a bug which resulted in very long routes).  It is possible
that some originating mailsystems dont handle the address strings
correctly, or that the gateway at UCB (which I dont know much about) is
doing something odd.  In any case if you send me your undeliverable
mail, Ill see if I can figure it out.

	Regarding FTL travel, it seems to me that the subject is very
closely tied with time travel.  Time dilation at relativistic speeds
results in the people aboard the ship seeming to travel FTL; its just
that when they get back to their original reference-frame everybody
they knew is dead and buried.  If they could go back in time,
everything would be fine, right?
	This makes the causality problems a bit clearer once youve
accepted time dilation, which has been pretty well proven
experimentally using decay rates of slow and fast particles.  Hubble's
red-shift can also be interpreted as a time-dilation effect I think.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 1982 at 1632-PDT
From: Andrew Knutsen <knutsen@SRI-UNIX>
To: space at Mit-Mc
Subject: oops on previous msg, plus physics list administrivia
Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX

	Id like to modify the "I think" at the end of my last
message to be a bit less definite. Red-shift is caused primarily
by the Doppler effect, which can also cause blue-shift. Since
a red shift caused by time dilation shouldnt depend on direction
(right?) the doppler shift is an independent effect I guess.
However it still seems as if time dilation might have an effect
on EM radiation... does anybody know?

	Also, would the people who requested "SASW0@MC" and 
"TK.FONER@MC" be added to the physics list please contact
me? MC doesnt like you, and I deleted your original message
which might provide clues...

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 82 8:25:43-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Perseid Question
Article-I.D.: inuxc.301
Via:  Usenet; 13 Aug 82 19:56-PDT

	
	Several observers in the Indianapolis area have reported
a fairly active Perseid meteor shower, about 10 per hour, while
viewing in heavily light polluted area's. This is somewhat 
surprising considering all the recent information claiming that
the last quarter moon would hinder observation, the shower peaked
during the day, and that the Persieds shower itself is on the
decrease.

	So what is the opinion of other OBSERVERS, was this a good
meteor shower?

					Fred	
					inuxc!fred

------------------------------

Date: 14 August 1982 01:14-EDT
From: Steve B. Waltman <SBW at MIT-MC>
Subject:  physics discussion
To: knutsen at SRI-UNIX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	Please add me to your list for net.physics.
					Thank you,
					Steve Waltman
					<SBW at MIT-MC>

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 82 14:29:54-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!pyuxbb!eisx!rg at Ucb-C70
Subject: Yager Days
Article-I.D.: eisx.357
Via:  Usenet; 14 Aug 82 0:47-PDT

I am looking for some good reading material on the early days of
our country's space program.  Actually, the per space program days
of test planes and rockets at what is now Edwards.  Mail any
references you have.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #272    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 272

Today's Topics:
			 Military Payload Failure
				 FTL etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 82 22:42:24-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Military Payload Failure
Article-I.D.: alice.861
Via:  Usenet; 14 Aug 82 5:47-PDT

It was disclosed today that the main part of the military's
experiments on board STS-4 failed.  The failure was due to
a cover over the infrared telescope not opening.  Officials
debated the possibility of a space walk (into the cargo bay)
but decided against it due to time constraints.

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 14 August 1982  16:16-EDT
Sender: KWH at MIT-OZ
From: KWH at MIT-MC
To: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
Cc: space at MIT-MC
Subject: FTL etc.

Another very good treatment of relativity (special) is
Taylor and Wheeler's "Space-Time Physics".

Ken
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #273    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 273

Today's Topics:
			     Skyrail proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15-Aug-82 18:50:28 PDT (Sunday)
From: Hamilton.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Skyrail proposal
To: Space @ MC
cc: Hamilton.es
Reply-To: Hamilton.es @ PARC-MAXC

An interesting variation on the skyhook proposals that were discussed in
this forum some months ago has been published in the August issue of
Spacewatch.  Briefly, the proposal is for a continuous rail in LOW earth
orbit.  Two stations on opposite sides of the earth would maintain
themselves in LOW geosynchrony (and the rail in stable orbit) using
standard magnetic levitation techniques.  Power could be supplied either
by high-voltage cables from earth, or by laser or microwave from SPS.
Cars traveling the rail could cheaply catapult payloads into higher
orbits.

Spacewatch is published by:

The Chicago Society for Space Studies
4 N. 186 Walter Drive
Addison, IL  60101

CSSS is an independent space education and advocacy group, loosely
affiliated with O'Neill's Space Studies Institute.  $15/yr gets you
membership and their newsletter, Spacewatch.

The author of the article is:

Kenneth A. Brakke
Mathematics Dept.
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN  47907

Maybe he's on this list?

--Bruce

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #274    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 274

Today's Topics:
			     Skyrail Proposal
			     FTL vs Causality
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 1982 1850-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Skyrail Proposal
To: space at MIT-MC

Also appeared in the L5 News.

Jim

------------------------------

Date:  16 August 1982 22:41 edt
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  FTL vs Causality
To:  Space at MIT-MC

From decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70

   "The problem with any FTL transmission of information is that when
    one has cause and effect connected by such transmission, from a
    frame of reference moving at a suitable speed in a suitable
    direction the cause and the effect appear to be reversed."

Isn't it the case that they can only appear reversed if the observers
are using light-speed-limited means to make the observations? Suppose
that the observers are using whatever FTL transmission technique were
used to connect the two events. Would it then be possible to see
cause and effect reversed?

It has always seemed to me that many of the effects of approaching
light speed are perceptual difficulties caused by trying to use light
to observe. You would see a lot of very similar effects if you tried
to use sonar to observe objects moving near the speed of sound. I do
not understand, though, why the speed of light in particular, should
be sacred, any more than the speed of sound.

Perhaps someone who understands could explain.

			Paul

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #275    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 275

Today's Topics:
			    Comet Austin query
		       Re: Skyrail proposal - (nf)
		       Re: Perseid Question - (nf)
			 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #268
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-ISL received by CMU-10A at 17-Aug-82 09:14:50-EDT
Date: 17 Aug 1982 09:12:40-EDT
From: Brad.Allen at CMU-780D at CMU-10A
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Comet Austin query

Has anyone seen Comet Austin yet?  It should now be visible just after sunset
north of the sun in Leo Minor, but it's been too hazy here in Pittsburgh for
me to find it. How about you West Coast folks?

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 82 12:01:33-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!hp-pcd!jay (Jay Phillips) at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Skyrail proposal - (nf)

	An article on the 'skyrail' idea also appears in the July issue
of the L5 news, a publication of the L5 society.

				Jay Phillips
				...ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!jay

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 82 18:01:43-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie (Charlie Amacher) at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Perseid Question - (nf)

	We observed the Perseids from 9:45 to 12:40 PDT on August 12
from the top of a nearby mountain (Mary's Peak for you locals) in Oregon. 
They were really superb.  I may be biased by having had the best seeing 
conditions for a shower in many years, but we saw about 20 FIREBALLS
(leaving luminous trails) an hour, along with many smaller meteors. 
	Our watching terminated with local moonrise, but from what
we saw I have no trouble believing that someone in Indianapolis could
see ~10 an hour.
	I have a question in relation to the Perseids. When we were 
watching them we noticed what appeared to be a secondary shower with a 
radiant in the southeast.  These meteors were slower, mostly yellow,
and smaller than the Perseids.  Can anyone in net.space land identify 
this other shower?
 					...hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie

------------------------------

Date: 17-Aug-82 15:01:07 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Pugh.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #268
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 11 Aug 1982 0303-PDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Pugh.ES

I have some info on tracking down a copy of Holt's paper.  The local chapter of the AIAA here in LA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) informs me that someone at the address below can help in obtaining copies of the paper:

	AIAA
	TIS LIBRARY
	555 W. 57th Street
	New York, New York  10019.

The above address is the place to go for technical papers MORE THAN 12 MONTHS
OLD.  The paper by Holt certainly qualifies.  For more recent papers the
address below is the one to use:

	AIAA
	Order Dept.
	1290 Avenue of the Americas
	New York, New York  10104.

Be sure to mention the author, title, paper number (AIAA-80-1233 ?), place,
and date.  I understand the "16th Joint Propulsion Conference" is important.
Please let me know what you find.

/Eric

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #276    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 276

Today's Topics:
			      Perseid Shower
			    Space In The News
			  Comet Austin - Found!
			   Where is Austin?????
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 1982 09:39 PDT
From: DMRussell at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Perseid Shower
To: Space@MIT-MC
cc: DMRussell.PA

I watched the shower for about an hour from the middle of the 
Stanford campus from 10:30-11:30, PDT. 
(I happened to be there when I remembered that
/this/ was the night.  Oh well.)  In spite of amazing light pollution
from the El Camino Strip, and HP's patented "Illuminate the Sky" Labs,
I was able to see 2 small ones and 3 large meteors.  These last 
3 were very bright and very yellow and eminated from the SE 
as well.  They did not, however, leave any luminous trails.  (At least 
none that we could see.)  

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 1982 1109-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: Space In The News
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]18-Aug-82 11:09:30.WMARTIN>

From Electronic Engineering Times, Aug.  16, 1982, page 32, the
"DC Circuit" column by Howard Roth:

THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM: AN EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION

According to Pentagon sources, the Soviet Union is outspending
the US space program by up to $4 billion per year.

Also, say the sources, the Russians plan to quadruple their
$18-billion-a-year space program by the turn of the century.

Russia spent about $6 billion in 1981 for spacecraft now in
orbit.  During last year, the Soviets launched 98 space missions
with a total payload of 126 spacecraft.  In 1981, the US launched
18 missions.

These are ominous figures.  They point to a concerted,
orchestrated efort by the Soviet Union to develop a continuous
manned presence in the high ground of space.  While the precise
amount of money the Soviets are putting into specific projects is
difficult to determine, it is clear, say the sources, that the
Soviets are pouring money into such areas as laser-weapon
satellites (the first of which is expected to be launched
sometime next year), hunter/killer satellites designed to destroy
such birds as communications satellites, and a winged reusable
transport (a less sophisticated version of the American space
shuttle) to ferry personnel and materials to and from orbiting
space stations.

It is still conceded that the US holds the technological edge in
space.  ...  However, the Soviets have been consistently
averaging about 75 missions a year more than the US.  They are
also outspending the US as previously discussed.  While quantity
does not mean quality, the technological disparity between the
two countries appears to be closing as a result of the massive
Soviet effort.  Unless we move, and soon, the gap will one day be
non-existent.

SPACE AS A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT

Appreciation of the Soviet space program has been slow, but it is
building.  Until recently, limited attention had been given to
the Soviet space program by US intelligence groups.  But the
Defense Department is now devoting more attention to the Soviet
effort, including attempting to analyze the relationship between
the various parts of its space program, and the space program as
a whole with the military.

The Defense Dept.  is also attempting to make changes to counter
the expansion in Soviet space activities.

Said Edward C. Aldridge, Air Force undersecretary, to the
American Astronautical Society, "In the past, our space systems
were designed to be operated in a non-hostile, benign
environment.  Little attention was paid to wartime requirements
of survivability or to the increasing dependence of military
commanders on space support.  I believe this has now changed.  We
have recognized that our systems must be able to operate in a
hostile wartime situation.  This recognition will have profound
implications for the way we do business in space."

***End extract from referenced column ***

Another item SPACE readers might find of interest is that the PBS
program "Firing Line", with Bill Buckley, last week was on the
subject of "The High Frontier", and had General Graham and a Dr.
Graham as the guests, discussing the space-based ICBM defense
concept going by that name.

Regards, Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 82 22:32:01-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Comet Austin - Found!
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2540
Via:  Usenet; 18 Aug 82 23:46-PDT


SUCCESS!!!!!

The weather finally decided to cooperate.  My wife Elaine and I headed
out to a elevated spot (highway overpass embankment) near our apartment
to search for Comet Austin.  Sunset was at 8:25 pm EDT.  We set up watch
around 9:10 (roughly the time Lew Mammel and Ron Meyer reported) and, as
the skies darkened, spotted Austin around 9:18pm.  It wasn't until 9:25
that we were sure about the sighting, but there it was, a faint (~5.0 mag)
fuzzy spot with no visible tail.  Position was (10h 20m RA, 41deg DEC),
just south and east of Mu Ursa Major.  We were using 8x50 binoculars, and
needed to use averted vision to get a good look.  The comet was visible
until after 10:00pm, when the lights of Columbus blotted it out.

I observed Comet Bradfield last summer, and it was considerably less to
write home about than Comet Austin.  To those who haven't tried yet, or
those who've never seen a comet, I'd encourage you to check this one
out.  Consider this a good warm up for Hailey in 1986.

Observing conditions should improve as the comet moves further east and
north of the sun, although it will dim rather rapidly.  Unfortunately,
the moon will start showing itself, being new on the 19th and first
quarter the 26th.  Elaine and I plan to try again tomorrow night, and
every night hence.  Anybody wishing an up-to-date position can mail a
request to me.  I would very much like to hear from anyone who observes
Comet Austin and can supply positional information that I can pass on
as well as compare to ours.

					Happy hunting,
					 David Bryant
					  cbosg!djb

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 82 13:57:51-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Ucb-C70
Subject: Where is Austin?????
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.444
Via:  Usenet; 18 Aug 82 23:56-PDT


    I'm very frustrated!  I've been watching faithfully for about 2 weeks,
during which time we've had some truly excellent seeing here in Indiana,
however I have not seen Comet Austin.  Does anyone out there know what's
happened.  It was supposed to be around 4th magnitude a few days ago.
It seems to me that it should stand right out in my binoculars.  Is this
another fizzle like Kohoutek (sp?)??  Before anyone asks, my info is just
what was on this newsgroup about it.  Thanx in advance for explanations.

                              els[Eric Strobel]
                              pur-ee!pur-phy!els

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #277    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 277

Today's Topics:
			      Orbit question
			      Austin Report
			   Finding Comet Austin
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 82 9:24:57-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Orbit question
Article-I.D.: inuxc.335
Via:  Usenet; 19 Aug 82 17:46-PDT


        The current interest in Comet Austin has me curious
about orbital determination. Does anyone know of a good reference
that explains how to determine a comet's orbit, more specifically
where a comet will be in a few weeks or days, from two or more
observations.

				inuxc!fred
				Fred

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 82 8:50:15-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70
Subject: Austin Report
Article-I.D.: inuxc.333
Via:  Usenet; 19 Aug 82 17:56-PDT


	Last night August 18, 1982 Comet Austin was observed at the
Mendenhall-Romano observatory which is located at 39 deg 57 min
North Lat and 86 deg 12 min Long. ( Indianapolis)

	The comet's Magnitude was estimated at 5.2

	The comet's position:

			R.A 10h 24m
		       Dec. 40d 54m   this position measured at
					9:25P.M. EST

	The comet angular size was estimated at 3 min.

	The comet is near the stars lambda and mu Ursa Major. It was
first picked up at 8:30 EST and can be "just seen" in 7x 50 bin.
The view improves with objective aperture and is quiet splendid
in a 8 inch telescope.

	The following people made these observations.

			Larry Marcus BTL-IN
			Ralph Keyser BTL-IN
			Ron Meyer BTL-INH (IAS)
			Fred Mendenhall- BTL-INH (IAS)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 82 15:33:02-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Finding Comet Austin
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2542
Via:  Usenet; 19 Aug 82 21:27-PDT


	For Eric Strobel, because he asked, and for any others having
difficulty finding Comet Austin, here are a few hints.

	The first trick is to be sure you're looking in the right place,
either based on right-ascension/declination positional information, or
from knowledge of the stars in the vicinity  (a good star map is invaluable).
Since you've been following the discussion on net.space, you've got both
position and neighborhood information, so that's not likely to be the problem.

	What is probably causing you grief is not knowing what to look
for and how to look for it.  This can be a hairy business, even for experienced
observers.  Comet Austin isn't going to be as bright as you imagine.  When a 
comet is billed as being 4th magnitude, it isn't necessarily as observable as 
a 4th magnitude star.  For comets (and other diffuse objects) one speaks of the
"integrated magnitude", which is figured by summing the light output over the 
entire object.  This is handy for comparison, but is misleading to observers, 
especially if the object is relatively large (like a galaxy).  As a result, 
Comet Austin won't stand out in your binoculars.  It won't even be as noticable
as the 5th magnitude stars nearby.  Instead, you'll have to be slow and 
deliberate in scanning the area, using averted vision if necessary, looking for
that tell-tale fuzziness that is characteristic of comets.

	Such a approach is almost sure to produce results, provided your
weather holds.  Expect to see a faint, fuzzy spot, more or less where 
predicted.  No visible tail, just a small elliptical "cloud".  Most of all, be 
patient. (Anyone that hangs in there for 2 weeks with no success has all the
makings of a Real Astronomer.)

						 Good Luck,
						David Bryant
						 cbosg!djb

ps: Austin wasn't expected to be as spectacular as Kohoutek, perhaps in
    part to it's relatively recent discovery (July 19th), and little
    advance magnitude/orbit information.  If you really want disappointment,
    wait until Hailey comes around.  Folks are expecting a nightly display
    of incredible proportions.  Ah well...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #278    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 278

Today's Topics:
				"laurenx"
			Congressional Bill HR 4286
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 August 1982 1826-PDT (Friday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: "laurenx"
To: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at SRI-CSL, HUMAN-NETS-REQUEST at RUTGERS,
    INFO-MICRO-REQUEST at BRL
CC: INFO-CPM-REQUEST at BRL, SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MC,
    TELECOM at ECLB

Please delete the name "laurenx" from any and all mailing lists.  This
test account has been deleted.  I appreciate your assistance!

--Lauren--

NOTE THAT THE ACCOUNT NAME IS "LAURENX" *not* "LAUREN".  "LAUREN", of course,
should *not* be deleted!

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 1982 0038-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Congressional Bill HR 4286
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: poli-sci at MIT-AI, jma at SU-AI, kdo at SRI-KL

A bill to establish a national space and aeronautics policy, and for
other purposes.


              Title IV - Government of Space Territories

Constitutional Protection

Section 4.01 All persons residing in any community in space organized
under the authority and flag of the United States shall be entitled to
the protection of the Constituion of the United States.

Self Government

Section 4.02 Whenever any such community shall have acquired twenty
thousand inhabitants, on giving due proof thereof to Congress, they
shall receive from Congress authority with appointment of time and
place to call a convention of representatives to establish a permanent
constitution and government for themselves.

Admission to Statehood

Section 4.03 Whenever any such community shall have as many
inhabitants as shall then be in any one of the least numerous of the
United States such community shall be admitted as a State into the
Congress of the United States on an equal footing with the original
States.




Jim

-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #279    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 279

Today's Topics:
			     Austin observed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 82 22:41:20-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      npois!npoiv!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!ixn5c!ihps3!ihuxv!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: Austin observed
Article-I.D.: ihuxv.249
Via:  Usenet; 21 Aug 82 20:56-PDT

Saw comet Austin just below Ursa Majors hind foot with an Edmund Astroscan.
( 4.5"  f/4 reflector with 28mm eyepiece ). I also saw it with binoculars.
( 7 x 50 ). I went to a rural site west of Aurora IL. Time of observation
was 9:10 to 9:20 PM CDT. Conditions were excellent ( except for mosquitoes ).
The Milky Way was pronounced with the Great Rift clearly visible.
The comet appeared similarly to M13 in Hercules, except perhaps a little dimmer.
Thanks to whoever it was that posted the coordinates. If conditions
are good tomorrow I think I'll try again.

			Lew Mammel, Jr. - BTL Indian Hill

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #280    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 280

Today's Topics:
			  Comet Austin Observed
			    Space Constitution
	    Clipping Service - OTA report on space technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 82 9:00:34-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!UNKNOWN.npois!npoiv!harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!rrm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Comet Austin Observed
Article-I.D.: inuxc.331
Via:  Usenet; 22 Aug 82 3:36-PDT


Last night 8/17/82 comet Austin was found at 9:10 EST. The comet was sighted
approximately 5 degrees from the horizon on a line draw perpendicular from
the horizon to gamma Ursa Major. My location does not have the best NW sky
around but the object was fairly bright. It was first detected with my
8" f/6 dobsonian (nicknamed "the photon eater"). An attempt was made to
observe it with binoculars, but this failed. At 9:18 EST my iq3f461!#!%&#
(censored) neighbor decided to turn on his outdoor flood lights to illuminate
his entire house. Obviously his electric bill for the last month was to low
and he thought how nice it would be to help out the power company in their
time of need. Of course, his house was directly to the NW from my observing
location. Around 9:25 Austin was difficult to detect, mostly because of
the strong light pollution (it didn't do much for my night vision either).
The comet had the appearance of a bright E0 ellipitical galaxy with no trace
of a tail. This is the first comet that I have seen and I plan on keeping
a watchful eye on it as it visits our solar system. Comets are very unpredict
able, they may suddenly brighten and from a tail, or perhaps break up before
your very eyes. Good luck and good weather!!!!

					Ron Meyer
					inuxc!rrm

------------------------------

Date: 22 August 1982 2047-EDT
From: Lars Ericson at CMU-10A
Subject: Space Constitution
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

The requirements for admission into statehood of an Earth-bound 
territory are a lot more involved than the number of inhabitants.

Why go into space to be governed by the same old folks anyway?  I
think a primary virtue of space is *space*: you can go out and try 
new things.

-- Lars

------------------------------

Date:  22 August 1982 21:00 edt
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Clipping Service - OTA report on space technology
To:  Space at MIT-MC


OTA report hits sliding U.S. space technology lead

    From the August 1982 issue of Industrial Research and Development
        by Ted Agres

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The United Stated is in grave danger of losing its leadership in
space technology and development due to a lack of consistent policy
and direction in civilian space programs, according to a report to
Congress by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).

The report, released in June, warns that efforts must be made by both
the U.S. Government and the private sector to correct the problem
because "international competition in space applications is a
reality", especially from the Europeans and the Japanese.

"Both technological and commercial leadership are at stake", the OTA
report warns. "Unless the U.S. is prepared to commit more of its
public and private resources to space than it does now, it will lose
its preeminence in space applications in the 1980's."

This is because "there is no overall agreement about [what] direction
or scope the civilian space program should assume in the future." In
addition, the report continues, "there is no clear and predictable
policy or process to define at what rate and by what criteria the
transfer of technology from government research, development, and
demonstration programs to the private sector should take place."

Unless this situation is corrected, increased space acitivities by
the Europeans and Japanese "threaten the loss of significant revenue
opportunities for the U.S. and well as a potential loss of prestige
and influence."

The 391 page OTA report, "Civilian Space Policy and Applications",
was prepared for the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and was endorsed by the House Committee on Science and
Technology. The report contains perhaps the sharpest warning to date
that the U.S. leadership in space development is being seriously
eroded.

Barely a week after the report was issued, NASA cut the number of
projected flights of the space shuttle through 1992 (from 500 to
fewer than 300). This would raise the cost of lofting cargo into
orbit by 85% after 1985. NASA officials maintain that the shuttle
still will be commercially competitive with the European Space
Agency's Ariane rockets, but many firms seem to be questioning that
assessment.

The OTA report delves into a number of policy areas, including the
appropriate roles of the Federal government and of private industry
in civilian space technology; the best relationship between the
civilian and military space programs, including use of space
transport vehicles such as the shuttle for national security
purposes; and which new space projects, if any, should follow
development of the shuttle.

Both the government and private sectors, the report noted, must make
greater efforts to ensure the continued excellence of the civilian
space program. For example, it is "critical" that the government
increase its efforts to transfer Federally developed technology to the
private sector once "significant commercial potential" has been
established.

OTA identified four such areas of government involvement termed
essential to the nation's future in space: contributing to basic R&D,
supporting space science, providing public goods and services, and
regulating and coordinating national space efforts, especially those
involving international agreements.

"Although the Federal government must continue to play an important
part in space" OTA said, "it cannot do the job by itself. The twin
factors of diminishing Federal resources for civilian space
activities and the dynamic qualities of the private sector make it
important that the private sector participate more actively in U.S.
space efforts."

The OTA stopped short of taking a position on the role of the
military in civilian space programs, noting the "serious questions"
that have arisen. But it did recommend a "more timely transfer of
military technological capacity to the civilian sector, assurance
that past restraints on permissible civilian applications activities
be reexamined...[and] increased joint management of programs common
to both" the civilian and the military sectors.

The major challenge lies in international competition for the
commercialization of space. While observing that there is "no single
best model" for commercializing U.S. space application technologies,
OTA recommended establishing "agreements of cooperation" between
industry and government. Such accords would include encouraging
advances in satellite communications and remote sensing. Another
possibility would be to allow NASA to collect a royalty fee on future
profits from satellites in return for a free launch.

"Private firms must not expect publicly financed technologies to be
transferred gratis, and government agencies must be willing to
relinquish control over their projects and to plan ahead for eventual
commercialization" if the U.S. is to compete with other international
efforts.

As examples, OTA identified four specific projects where
industry-government cooperation could lead to technical and commercial
advances. These are: advanced satellite communications, satellite
remote sensing, materials processing in space, and space
transportation.

Among problems in these areas, OTA observed that for communications
satellites the U.S. "lacks a consistent policy to assure coordination
of military, civilian, and industry efforts. This absence of clear
vision will again become a problem as a new configuration for
communications satellites ... becomes possible in the 1990's."

The development of the Ka band (30/20 GHz) of the spectrum for
advanced satellite communications is one area in which new models of
cooperation between civilian and government couls be tried, OTA said.
It noted that the Japanese and Europeans already are developing
necessary technologies with heavy subsidies from their respective
governments. Again, OTA warned that the U.S. stands to lose the race
in commercial exploitation of this emerging technology.

In the same way, the future of U.S. civilian efforts in remote
sensing "is in considerable doubt," OTA stated. "At the present time,
it is unclear whether the U.S. will have a civilian remote-sending
capability after the flight of Landsat D." The French, the Japanese,
and ESA are building their own remote-sensing satellite systems, and
it is "certain that the U.S. will no longer have a monopoly in
providing these services."

Likewise, the U.S. can expect significant competition from Germany,
Japan, France, and the Soviet Union in materials processing in space.
Additional U.S. government efforts are needed before private industry
can be expected to undertake large-scale and expensive manufacturing
of goods in space, OTA said.

But it is in the field of space transportation that the U.S. appears
to face its most serious challenge. NASA, OTA said, had planned to
phase out its most expendable launch vehicles in the mid-1980's as
the space shuttle was expected to become fully operational. But with
the future need for launch services apparently exceeding availability
(and with NASA's curtailment of future shuttle launches), the private
sector "will be forced to continue to purchase launch services from
the French," OTA reported. NASA is reviewing its launch plans.

Fundamentally, OTA believes that if the U.S. space program is to
maintain its past vitality, the nation "must also be willing to
commit sufficient resources and attention to basic science
engineering in all area related to space." This required clear policy
initiatives for the future, and both the executive and legislative
branches of government have been negligent in that, OTA said.

In the absence of such policy objectives, the course of the U.S.
space program will be determined by annual budget deliberations among
the executive agencies, the Office of Management and Budget, and
Congress. "Over time, the sum of these decisions determines the
overall course of the space program" although it bears little
relationship to the long-term evolution of space systems.

OTA recommends "periodic high-level discussion of the space program"
by the White House and Congress. OTA also suggests evaluating
different options, including establishing a new Dept of R&D, of which
NASA would be a part, or establishing a commission to advise the
President and Congress on space.

An additional option would be to re-establish and broaden the
National Aeronautics and Space Council to include representatives
from civilian agencies, the Dept of Defense, and the private sector.
The NASC was disbanded in 1973 as part of a congressional effort to
remove so-called advocacy groups from close access to the President,
but no council or institution emerged to assume its responsibilities.

Unless some solution to the overall problem is discovered and put
into action, OTA warned, "the current drift" in civilian space policy
and direction "will continue and worsen."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #281    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 281

Today's Topics:
			     laurenx message
		      Independant Space Colonies   
			      tail on Austin
	OASIS meeting Saturday: "Space Stations, Past and Future"
			     tail correction
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 August 1982 1351-PDT (Sunday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: laurenx message
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MC

Gang,

Sorry about that "laurenx" message.  I still don't understand how
the -REQUEST got lopped off, since my original copy here shows
SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS-REQUEST@MC as the destination!  Some "smart" mail
handling software somewhere along the line apparently lopped off
the -REQUEST and truncated the header in a manner that, by chance,
was still deliverable.  

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 1982 1140-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Independant Space Colonies   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

	Date: 22 August 1982 2047-EDT
	From: Lars Ericson at CMU-10A

	The requirements for admission into statehood of an Earth-bound 
	territory are a lot more involved than the number of inhabitants.

	Why go into space to be governed by the same old folks anyway?  I
	think a primary virtue of space is *space*: you can go out and try 
	new things.

I think the question is really: How do you get there from here??
The people that pay the money for expansion into space are almost certainly
not going to do so purely out of the kindness of their hearts.  It will be an
investment of one kind or another.  They will almost certainly not do it
unless there is some assurance that the factories or colonies they establish
will retain some allegiance (political or financial, depending on who is putting
up the money) to their sponsors.

Secondly, it may be unwise (from the point of view of a groundhog) to let people
who *strongly* disagree with your way of doing things, live at the top of your
gravity well (see Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress).

However, it certainly would be nice to diversify culturally.  I suspect that,
barring major wars or natural catastrophes, the Earth will be pretty homogenous
within 50 or 100 years.  Fast transportation and high-bandwidth communication
will make Tokyo pretty much like London or New York before too long.  A space
colony in the Belt will be hours out of touch by radio and possibly years out 
of touch by ship.  If that ain't isolation, I don't know what is.  Just what
you need to diverge from the mainstream.

I have a friend who jokingly suggests that all outbound space colonists be
addicted to heroin before they leave.  That way you always have a handle on
them.  As colonies become practical, the governments of Earth will most likely
start thinking along the same lines (though nothing so drastic, I hope).
Is there a way to safely reach a state where the colonies can be safely
independant from their almost inevitable beginnings as government or industrial
outposts?

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 82 13:33:01-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!ixn5c!ihps3!ihuxv!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: tail on Austin
Article-I.D.: ihuxv.252
Via:  Usenet; 23 Aug 82 21:06-PDT

Dave Rosik and I went to a rural site west of Aurora, IL last
night, August 20, to observe comet Austin. At 9:30 PM CDT we
observed it at about 10h 50m, 42d 50' . I got the coordinates
by locating it on a Smithsonian Star Chart. These coordinates
are almost exactly the ones that David Bryant gave for August 21.
Is this some kind of mistake or did August 21 mean 00 00 August 21?

Anyway, we definitely saw a tail. It was short ( ~20' ), straight,
broad, and faint (of course.) I'm sure a photograph would show
it nicely. The tail pointed away from the comet in a direction
about 30d west of north, north being defined by the meridian through
the comet.

We were using an Edmund Astroscan (4.5" f/4 reflector) with a 28mm eyepiece.
Conditions were good but it was a little hazy compared to August 17,
when I first observed Austin. Obviously a dark horizon in the
northwest is indispensable. I could clearly see 8th magnitude stars
near Austin, and barely see 9th, the faintest ones shown on the
SAO Star Chart.

				Lew Mammel, Jr. - BTL Indian Hill

------------------------------

Date: 21-Oct-85 21:32:15 PDT (Monday)
From: Hamilton.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: OASIS meeting Saturday: "Space Stations, Past and Future"
To: Space@MC
cc: Hamilton.es

Los Angeles area spacefanz:

SPEAKER: George Butler, McDonnell Douglas

TOPIC: "Space Stations, Past and Future"

TIME: this Saturday 28 August 7 pm

PLACE: The Aerospace Corp., Bldg. A-1, El Segundo
	(take the San Diego Fwy to El Segundo Blvd, then west
	about a half mile, just past Aviation Blvd,
	on the left)

This is a general meeting of OASIS, the Southern California
Chapter of the L-5 Society.  Free and open to the public.

--Bruce

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 82 14:11:36-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!ixn5c!ihps3!ihuxv!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: tail correction
Article-I.D.: ihuxv.254
Via:  Usenet; 23 Aug 82 23:36-PDT

Sorry, the tail was pointing 30d EAST of north. That is, the end of
the tail was at greater right ascension than the head. I guess this is
a typical mistake made from looking DOWN at a star chart.

According to Norton's Star Atlas I should say the tail was
"north following" the comet.

			Lew Mammel, Jr. - BTL Indian Hill

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #282    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 282

Today's Topics:
				STS-5 data
			Pollution Plagues Shuttle
			    Looking for books
			      Austin update
			 Comet Austin -- found??
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 1982 2109-EDT
From: Rodger D. Osgood <RDO at MIT-XX>
Subject: STS-5 data
To: space at MIT-MC

     I have a friend in the Flight Planning division at JSC and I mentioned
the interest expressed on this list for info on the position of the shuttle
during its mission. She sent me a whole bunch of stuff on STS-5. It includes:

     A table of the intended in-flight maneuvers (9 manuevers aprox. half a
page of data)

     A table of all the ascending nodes , being the times and positions at 
which the shuttle crosses the equator from south to north. (101 orbits aprox.
2 1/2 pages of data)

     A complete listing of the ephemerides, which are the positions and
velocities of the shuttle in one minute intervals and in three different
coordinate systems. (three pages of microfiche with 581 pages of data on it.)

     Some auxiliary info to define the terms and explain the coordinate
systems.

All of this info is based on a lift-off of 12:19:00 GMT on Nov 11,1982 but
can be adjusted to the actual lift-off. It includes the changes caused by 
the 9 maneuvers as well as the effects of drag on the orbit, and it covers
the expected duration of the mission plus one day (there is no deorbit 
maneuver simulated).

     I will probably put the in-flight maneuvers and the ascending nodes
on-line for those interested, however, I am not exactly sure what I can do
with 600 pages of epheremides. In addition my friend may be able to get
acquisition/deacquisition times for the various ground tracking stations.
I would like comments, suggestions, etc. on exactly what information would
be useful and what form it should be in. Please send comments or requests
to me at RDO@XX and general discussion to me or the list. I hope this will be 
of some help.

rodger
RDO@XX

P.S. I am starting this now so that I have time to get different info from
Houston if this is'nt exactly what peaple need.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 82 7:30:12-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Pollution Plagues Shuttle
Article-I.D.: alice.873
Via:  Usenet; 24 Aug 82 20:46-PDT

The shuttles own space pollution, water and exterior particles,
seriously hampered the optical experiments, designed just to see
if they would be interfered with, on STS-3, NASA said yesterday.
They say it could pose a serious problem to infrared devices and
other optical instruments aboard the shuttle on future launches,
and they will hold meetings, with the Air Force present, to decide
what to do.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 82 9:49:08-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!eisx!rg at Ucb-C70
Subject: Looking for books
Article-I.D.: eisx.363
Via:  Usenet; 24 Aug 82 21:36-PDT

I am looking for the following two books.  I have tried by local
libraries and my company's technical library without any luck.  If
anyone could pass along some information about these I would appreciate
it.  They are both about the early days of Edwards and White Sands.

	"Across the High Frontier"
	C. E. Yeager & W. Lundgren

	"X-15 Diary"
	R. Tregaskis

Thanks for your help.  Reply by mail.

Bob

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 82 8:48:48-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Austin update
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2549
Via:  Usenet; 25 Aug 82 0:16-PDT

Another successful sighting of Comet Austin!  This time it was Saturday,
August 21st.  Conditions were perfect, so I took my trusty 8x50's to a
party at a friend's, and keep an eye on my watch and the western horizon.
At around 9:20, I looked in the expected location, and there it was.  
(Showed it to several interested folks who were somewhat disappointed by
the faintness and small size.) Didn't see any sign of the tail Lew mentioned.
Approximate location was 11h 03m, 43d 25m, just as predicted. 

By the way, Lew is correct, the positions I gave were for 0 hours U.T. on the
indicated dates.  Correcting these times to our time zones brings them back
into the previous day.   The observed position on the 21st corresponds to the
position I supplied for the 22nd.  Confusing, but that's what universal time 
does to you...

Unfortunately, my position data ran out on the 22nd.  I plan to call and get
further data if possible.  Even if I can't, it should be easy to keep up with
Comet Austin, at least until the Moon gets to be a problem.

						David Bryant
						 cbosg!djb

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 82 10:41:12-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Ucb-C70
Subject: Comet Austin -- found??
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.446
Via:  Usenet; 25 Aug 82 0:56-PDT

   Well, I think I saw it last night.  Through my el cheapo 7x35 's it looks
like the little reflection you can sometimes get if a car goes by while you're
looking straight up thru binocs(only much dimmer).  Even with averted vision
I was sure my mind was on the blink.  I then dragged out my old Sears 60mm
refractor.  At 32x, I thought at first that it was a star and I'd jostled the
focus.  For anyone who hasn't seen it with a scope, that's about the best
description I can give.  Next time I try with the scope, I think I'll get out
of town!!!

                         els[Eric Strobel]
                         pur-ee!pur-phy!els

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #283    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 283

Today's Topics:
	     Geostationary Amateur Radio Satellites Proposed
	      Seeing what the night sky "really" looks like
		       Any organizations like SSI?
				L5 society
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 82 21:36:24-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Geostationary Amateur Radio Satellites Proposed
Article-I.D.: eagle.484
Via:  Usenet; 25 Aug 82 2:47-PDT

>From the Amsat net, August 24, 1982:

Cable Sat General corporation has proposed to the FCC that C-band
amateur radio transponders be carried on each of two
commercial GEOSTATIONARY communications satellites planned
for launch in late 1985-early 1986 aboard the space shuttle.

Each transponder would be constructed similarly to the commercial C-band
transponders that would be the satellites' primary payload.
Uplink would be between 5.65 and 5.67 Ghz, and downlink between 3.4
and 3.41 ghz.  One bird would be located between 60-70W longitude,
and the other at 140-150W.  Each transponder would have an
approximate bandwidth of 10 megahertz.  The modulation techniques
used would probably not be narrowband, due both to the difficulty of
maintaining tight stability at microwave frequencies, and the small
amount of transmitter power (~ 5 watts) available at the spacecraft.
FM, spread spectrum, and digital modulation techniques are possible.

It is estimated that a 10 meter dish with < 10 watts of transmitter
power would be required at a ground station to access either
transponder.  Because the amateur transponders would share the same
antennas as the commercial units, the coverage area would be similar
to that of other domestic satellites: North America, Mexico, the
Carribean, and southern Canada.

A not-for-profit corporation called ARNET (Amateur Radio Network
Experimental Transponder) would be created to administer the system.

This proposal is still in the early planning stages and is certainly
not guaranteed to take place.  However, the possibilities are
certainly exciting, and the company appears to be serious.

Phil Karn, KA9Q
Bell Labs, Murray Hill

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 1982 1330-EDT
From: Ron <FISCHER at RUTGERS>
Subject: Seeing what the night sky "really" looks like
To: space at MIT-MC

I hope no one minds a fairly useless gee whiz letter, but...

About two weeks ago I went on a trip to Maine with five other people.  We
had rented a cabin by a small freshwater ocean (they call them "ponds" up
there).  There were no street lights and very little civilization within
15 miles.  It was basically the boonies.  We arrived late the first night
and after unpacking I went down to the boat dock with a friend who is an
amateur astronomer.  I really didn't understand why he wanted to bring
binoculars out there at night, I mean, it would only make things look
closer, right?

About the moment that fallacy crossed my mind I reached the end of the
dock (by feel, it was pitch black) and looked up.  There was no way to
describe what I saw or felt.  I had never seen the sky quite like that,
zillions of stars, crystal clear, I could even see the Milky Way,
something I'd only heard described till then.  Much better than a
planetarium!  After gaping for about 20 minutes I noticed I was being
eaten alive by mosquitoes and went back inside.  I must have sounded
pretty strange to everyone else, they couldn't understand what I was so
amazed by!

So, after the trip I came back to dusty, cloud covered New Brunswick NJ to
find that "light pollution" more or less completely ruins observing
conditions.  This was incredibly annoying during the lunar eclipse.  Ever
since then I have been quietly gathering information and searching for a
better way to reproduce that experience; generally to find a good way to
"see what's really up there."

So, the questions I would like to put forth are: what is a good text on
skygazing (it would be spiffy if it included some harder astronomical
info), and what are the levels of involvement for a hobby like this?  More
specifically, if I were to go as far as buying binoculars or a small
telescope what type is recommended?

I don't know how interested the general "readership" of this digest is in
the answers.  Please reply directly to me and I'll summarize back to the
list if anyone wants to know.

Thanks alot,
(ron)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 1982 1412-EDT
From: Ron <FISCHER at RUTGERS>
Subject: Any organizations like SSI?
To: space at MIT-MC

I have a friend who would like to name SSI (previously known as the L5 society)
as a beneficiary in his life insurance.  Sounds like a nice idea.  I was
wondering if SSI is the largest group of its type (or maybe even the only group
of it's type).

Also, could someone reply to me directly with their address and say whether
they're incorporated.

(ron)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 82 15:39:42-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!harpo!eagle!san at Ucb-C70
Subject: L5 society
Article-I.D.: eagle.486
Via:  Usenet; 25 Aug 82 23:16-PDT

Can somebody enlighten me about the L5 society. What are its 
aims, ambitions, etc? How does one join? Is there a New Jersey 
chapter and what happens in meetings. I know almost nothing 
about it except a few things I read on the net. Please reply to me 
via mail (or Mail) only. Lets not clutter up the net with this 
personal request.

Reply by mail to 
	eagle!san, BTL, MH.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #284    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 284

Today's Topics:
				    L5
				X-15 Diary
			      Space Groups  
				SSI and L5
				L5 and SSI
		    Re: What the sky really looks like
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from M.PCO.LISD.HIS by MIT-MULTICS.ARPA dial; 26-Aug-1982 10:20:00-edt
Date:  26 August 1982 07:18 mst
From:  Davids.Multics at M
Subject:  L5
To:  SPACE at MIT-MC

I would also be interested in more information about the L5 society. I
do not think that sending info via the net would be inappropriate -
remember new people (like me) are hooking into the next every day and do
not have all of the useful background information.

------------------------------

Date: 26 August 1982 1048-EDT (Thursday)
From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30)
To: space at MIT-MC
Subject:  X-15 Diary
Message-Id: <26Aug82 104845 DS30@CMU-10A>

When I was in junior high school, I borrowed "X-15 Diary" from the
school library.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 1982 1039-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Space Groups  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

SSI is not the L5 Society.  You may be confusing one of several groups.

SSI is Space Services Incorporated.  They are the folks that are trying
to develop low-cost orbital booster systems.  You may recall the Percheron,
a liquid-fuel booster whose only flight was accidental and not very long.
(It blew up on the pad.  But don't forget that NASA blew up *lots* of
liquid-fuel boosters in their early days.)  SSI is now working on a 
far more rational approach: the Conestoga solid-fuel booster.  They
are based in Houston, Texas (I don't have the address).

NSI is the National Space Institute.  They are a Washington D.C. based
organization that (I believe) was orginally founded by Wernher von Braun.
They put out a nice magazine 10 times a year.  In the latest issue they
published the text of Ronald Reagan's speech at the STS-4 landing (something
I particularly wanted to see).  They also apparently have other activities
but I gather that they are mostly based on the East Coast.  Their address
is P.O. Box 7535, Ben Franklin Station, Washington D.C 20044

The L5 Society was formed in 1975 and its purpose is to promote space
development. (I believe that their charter says that the organization
can be dissolved when the Board of Directors can hold their final meeting
in orbit).  They recently held the First Annual Conference on Space
Development (a surprisingly large affair) and publish a fairly nice
monthly newsletter/magazine.  Their address is: 1060 E. Elm St.,
Tucson, AZ 85719.  There are also many active local chapters (more so
than NSI).

If anybody would like more information, please contact me directly
(NOT on the SPACE list).  And if you are on the USENET, *please* 
indicate a pathname from the ARPANet that will work for return mail.

					-- Tom

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 1982 1114-PDT
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: SSI and L5
To: space at MIT-MC

SSI [This stands for Space Studies Institute as I recall -Ed.] and L5 are
completely different organizations!  SSI is run by O'Neil at Princeton.
It gives grants and supports research into space exploitation.  For
example, it has a grant to someone to develope chemical technics for
extracting minerals from lunar materials.  It also is developing a third
generation mass-driver.  O'Neil has also recently developed (and patented)
a system for air traffic control that uses three satellites, as opposed to
umpteen ground stations.  His system is exciting a lot of people, except
of course the FAA whose system it would replace.  O'Neil's system would
save about 20 BILLION dollars(!) over the FAA system, and would require
only one box in each plane as opposed to thirteen black boxes for the FAA.

The L5 society, in my opinion, does little useful work.  It publishes an
amateurish magazine containing little useful information.  It also lobbies
policitians for more space spending.  The first function is pretty pathetic,
the second is of dubious legitimacy.  It's not worth joining.  I was a 
member of L5 last year but did not renew my membership -- there's just
nothing there.  I am going to repeat (perhaps increase) my SSI contribution.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 1982 1204-PDT
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: L5 and SSI
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: katz at USC-ISIF

Answering two messages at once and probably lots of other people will
answer this as well:

SSI is NOT L5.  They are two seperate organizations.  SSI stands for
space studies institute, is Gerard O'Neil's group and exists to do 
research necessary for space colonization (some of it anyway).  They
have put together a couple of working mass driver's and have done research
on the Lagrangian points.  SSI is incorporated and is, I believe 501C3
(non-profit organization).

L5 exists to educate people about space and to "spread the word."  Its goal
is to dissolve itself in a final meeting on a space colony at L5 (or L4,
I guess).  It is a 501 C3 organization.  L5 has chapters around the world.
The biggest is OASIS, in the LA area.  OASIS has monthly meetings, monthly
potluck parties, and special events (such as seeing the shuttle landings).
(The next OASIS meeting is this saturday, on Space stations, and was
announced in this digest earlier).  Another large L5 chapter exists in 
the San Francisco Bay area, also having monthly meetings and potlucks.
There are also large chapters in Mass. and Texas.

If you are interested in space, and want to get involved in making it
happen, you should definitly join L5 (and SSI as well).  If there is
a chapter near you, you should get involved in it.  Its a great way
to meet others interested in space, and a good way to get involved.

Oh, by the way, SSI is about to set up a chapter in LA and possibly
elsewhere as well.  Sorry I don't have the addresses of these organizations
with me at the moment.  You can contact me for further information on
OASIS.  For more information on the San Francisco chapter, call 
(415)482-0532.


				Alan

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 1982 1348-PDT
Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL
Subject: Re: What the sky really looks like
From: BILLW at SRI-KL
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]26-Aug-82 13:48:07.BILLW>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 26 Aug 1982 0302-PDT

Speaking of things, can someone tell me where the closest spot to
stanford is where it gets dark at night ?

WW

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Aug-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #285    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 285

Today's Topics:
			Independent Space Colonies
			   STS-6 info requested
		       Re: SPACE Digest V2 #284    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 82 12:22:45-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70
Subject: Independent Space Colonies
Article-I.D.: tekcad.177
Via:  Usenet; 27 Aug 82 5:41-PDT

     Regarding the question of how free space  colonies  can
happen when "they" pay for it, as brought up by Tom Wadlow:

     Space travel is paid for by large organizations because
they  are the only ones who can afford it AT PRESENT.   This
can change with new  forms  of  space  launch.   The  energy
necessary  to move a ton of mass from the Earth's surface to
L5 is 16,000 Kilowatt-hours at 100 percent efficiency.  This
is  $1000  worth  of  oil, $600 worth of electricity (in the
Northwest), or a few dollars worth of uranium.  If you  fig-
ure  on  300  tons  of  mass  per person (capital equipment,
biomass, and shielding, mostly) that's about $200K per  per-
son;  pretty  expensive, but not impossible to get on a per-
sonal basis.  The trick is getting the efficiency, and  that
will  probably  require  new inventions, but no new physics.
Shipping most of this mass from the moon can  make  it  even
cheaper.

     If people can pay for it themselves, some may do so out
of a desire for freedom and new frontiers, and who's to stop
them?  Most groundhogs would  rather  have  anarchists  "out
there"  than  at  home,  if  there must be anarchists at all
(further discussion of that belongs on net.poli-sci).

     Statehood?  The way things are going,  the  inhabitants
of  space  will  be  applying  to the Supreme Soviet, not to
Congress...
				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 Aug 1982 11:33 EDT
From: Sewhuk.HENR at PARC-MAXC
Subject: STS-6 info requested
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: Sewhuk.HENR

I am interested in watching the launch of STS-6, the one in Jan/Feb
(arctic season for Rochester) and was wondering what one does to do this.
I guess the most obvious thing is to get to the site.  Does it require
tickets, waiting lists, etc.  And if it is a first come/first serve deal
where's the best place to be to watch one of these things take off.

Dave

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 1982 1010-PDT
From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins )
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #284    
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
cc: billw at SRI-KL
In-Reply-To: Your message of 27-Aug-82 0302-PDT

From Stanford, drive up Page Mill Road to the Los trancos Open Space parking
lot (2/3 of the way to Skyline) and you'll get considerably better viewing
than in the flats.  Or you can go over skyline when it's not foggy for
even better viewing.

David

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #286    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 286

Today's Topics:
		    Updated ephemeris for comet Austin
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 82 9:12:15-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekmdp!patm at Ucb-C70
Subject: Updated ephemeris for comet Austin
Article-I.D.: tekmdp.1339
Via:  Usenet; 28 Aug 82 3:28-PDT

	The following updated ephemeris for Austin is published
in the September issue of Sky & Telescope magazine. All positions
are given for 0h Universal time; right aascention and declination
are per 1950 coordinates. E is the angualr elongation from the
Sun.

 1982      R.A.      Dec.    E    Mag.
          h  m       o  '    o

Aug 29   11 59.0   +44 50   40    5.5
Sep  3   12 19.6   +44 05   42    6.0
     8   12 31.7   +42 55   42    6.6
    13   12 39.3   +41 38   41    7.1
    18   12 44.4   +40 21   41    7.7
    23   12 48.1   +39 08   41    8.2
    28   12 51.1   +38 00   40    8.6
Oct  3   12 53.5   +36 58   41    9.1
     8   12 55.7   +36 03   42    9.5
    13   12 57.7   +35 16   43    9.9
    18   12 59.4   +43 35   44   10.2

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #287    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 287

Today's Topics:
		 Independent Space Colonies <eventually>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 August 1982 07:32-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Independent Space Colonies <eventually>
To: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Once we develop space mining (Moon and asteroids etc.) industry (LEO,
L-5, Geosynch, etc.) and habitat, I propose the following way to
homestead with minimal capital investment:
(1) First you work a mine on the Moon or somewhere else by remote control
 from Earth. This is labor not capital investment. You mine enough
 materials to make your cabin in the sky.
(2) Next you work the manufacturing facility by remote control. Most
 of this is automated but some loading and unloading of materials and
 final products as well as final assembly may require human interaction.
(3) Next you remotely-pilot a tug to put your space-cabin in LEO for
 rendesvous with the shuttle.
(4) Finally you stuff yourself like cattle into the cargo bay of the
 shuttle for a people-mover flight, go up, unload into your cabin, and
 now you can move that cabin anywhere within range of the space tug.
Thus you do most of the work "yourself" with computer/robot assistance.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Aug-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #288    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 288

Today's Topics:
			 Possible NASA Layoffs   
			  remote control mining
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 1982 1109-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Possible NASA Layoffs   
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a244  1516  29 Aug 82
AM-NASA Funds,330
Space Agency Layoffs Expected Because Of Reagan Veto
    SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - Space workers may have to be laid off
and the next shuttle mission delayed because of President Reagan's
veto of a supplemental money bill, officials say.
    Kennedy Space Center, in Florida, would shut down if it is forced to
lay off its 2,100 federal civil service workers, ''but that's very
unlikely,'' space center spokesman Hugh Harris said Friday.
    About half the work force at Johnson Space Center, or 3,400 workers,
is employed under civil serivce law, and spokesman Steve Nesbitt said
preparations for the shuttle's fifth mission could not continue
without them.
    Astronauts who are not in the branches of the military are covered
by civil service law.
    Reagan's veto of the $14.2 billion bill ''doesn't push us into a
furlough situation yet. There is still an opportunity for Congress to
override the veto, which many believe will be done, or to pass
another supplemental bill more to the president's liking,'' Nesbitt,
public information officer at the center, said Sunday.
    He said that even if they are necessary, furloughs could not be
handed out until Sept. 19, to comply with statutory notice
requirments. The furloughs would last from three to 10 days.
    Nesbitt said the shuttle's launch, scheduled for Nov. 11, could be
delayed one day for every day employees are not working.
    Reagan announced Saturday he had vetoed the bill, saying that it
exceeded his domestic programs request by nearly $1 billion. In
addition to the space center, the veto could affect 27 government
offices and the salaries of 3 million military personnel.
    Any layoffs stemming from the funding shortfall the bill was to
cover could last through Sept. 30. The fiscal year of the federal
government starts Oct. 1. Funding as of that date has already been
approved by Washington.
    While Congress has recessed for the Labor Day holiday until Sept. 8,
Kennedy Space Center has enough funds to cover the payroll until
Sept. 20.
    
ap-ny-08-29 1816EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 1982 2339-CDT
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.Slocum at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: remote control mining
To: space at MIT-AI

How do you control a piece of equipment with a built-in 2 1/2 second
MINIMUM reaction time?  Answer: not with any reliability at all, in
even a moderate environment.  And on the moon -- MINING, no less???

As the Navy and other deep-sea operators know, there are lots of
situations where remotes do well -- but there are even more where they
do not.  For most purposes, you've got to be there yourself.  That's
why there is so much interest in manned deep-submergence vessels,
diving tables, and the like.  All this, with NO perceptible control
delay, and some of the finest equipment money can buy -- at vastly
cheaper prices than equivalent capability deposited (intact) on the
surface of the moon by any currently available or near-term future
means.

So don't go staking your claims...
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #289    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 289

Today's Topics:
			  Re: SSI and L5 - (nf)
		     Re: Any organizations like SSI?
			      Private Launch
			      remote mining
			      Space Command
      Summary of reponses to "What the night sky really looks like"
			  remote control mining
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 82 12:01:31-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie (Charlie Amacher) at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: SSI and L5 - (nf)

Could you post some information on how to join SSI on the net, or mail it
to me directly?

					...ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie

[See next message -Ed]

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 82 22:56:44-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: mhtsa!allegra!phr at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Any organizations like SSI?

	I have a friend who would like to name SSI (previously known as
	the L5 society).....

No, no.  SSI was *never* known as the L-5 society; SSI is the Space
Studies Institute.  Both SSI and L-5 are alive and flourishing,
and either would be well worth contributing to.

The L-5 Society (1620 N. Park, Tucson AZ, don't know ZIPcode) [The July 82
L-5 News gives the address as: 1060 E. Elm, Tucson AZ 85719 -Ed] is a
grass roots society promoting space development; dues are $20/year ($15
for students) and the slick monthly L-5 News alone is worth the price of
admission.  There are also dozens of local chapters; national membership
is about 7000.  Besides the Newsletter, the Society's most significant
activities are educating the public and doing almost-political things to
support the space program.  (As a non-profit corporation, they can't
sponsor office-seekers or anything like that).  Their biggest triumph in
this area was preventing the US Senate from rubber-stamping the notorious
UN Moon Treaty, which would have made commercial use of lunar and
asteroidal materials very difficult and slowed down space development by
decades.  They seem to deserve some credit for preserving what's left of
the Galileo mission, and prolonged the agony of the now-defunct Halley
probe to the final wire.

The Space Studies Institute (195 Nassau Street, Princeton, NJ 08540) is
lower-keyed; they conduct and fund scientific research in areas which
haven't attracted Government money.  Much of the early work on model
mass drivers was done by Bill Snow at SSI; now that some of the ideas
are proven, he's doing the same thing for ARPA.  Other work has
included constructing models of automated lunar chemical processing
plants, designs for several-km-sized space colonies, etc. etc.  SSI
operates on a shoestring budget but is doing very important work.
More money would enable them to accomplish that much more.  They're
small enough for individual contributions to make a difference.
You can subscribe to their quarterly work-in-progress newsletter
(usually a few typewritten pages) for (last time I looked) $10/year.
Obligatory note: SSI's president is Gerard K. O'Neill.

There are several other possibilities: Delta Vee, the British
Interplanetary Society, the National Space Institute, etc.  See the
survey article by Trudy Bell, published in various forms recently in
the L-5 News, Omni, and a few other places.

I unfortunately haven't been active in this kind of stuff for about
a year (work...); some of the above information may be out of date.

--Paul Rubin

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 1982 1006-CDT
From: John Otken <CC.Otken at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Private Launch
To: space at MIT-MC

Space Services Inc. is about to give it another try.  They plan to
launch their second rocket on Sept 8.  They also announced a press
conference tomorrow (Wed) in Houston.  The local paper had some noise
in it which claimed that SSI had purchased this rocket from NASA - a
Minute Man III no less.

John.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 1982 0915-PDT
From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins )
Subject: remote mining
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 31-Aug-82 0303-PDT

As the years go by, we should be able to make remote units more capable
with more sophisticated computers and software.  They'll be able to do
many useful things with no control from the earth.  We haven't really
put in much effort at developing intelligent control programs yet, and
certainly a lot of such effort is still needed, but that doesn't mean
that it cannnot be done.  
David

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 1982 2038-PDT
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Space Command
To: space at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

SPACE COMMAND:  Another Step Toward the Final Frontier?

   I wasn't on the space net last June, so  I  don't  know  if  anyone
mentioned  that on June 21, 1982, Air Force announced the formation of
a special command responsible for military space activities.  The  new
Space  Command  (SPACECOM)  became an official command on September 1,
1982.

   SPACECOM   subsumes   the   functions  previously  accomplished  by
Aerospace Defense Command (ADCOM) and  the  Aerospace  Defense  Center
(ADC),  as  well as retaining North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD) authority and responsibilities.  SPACECOM also  recovers  some
people (about 200) and functions passed to Strategic Air Command (SAC)
in a reorganization three years ago.

   September  1, 1982, might be worth noting on your calendar.  It may
well represent as significant an event to space as was  the  emergence
of  a  US  Air  Force on September 18, 1947 (via evolution from the US
Signal Corps through the Army Air Forces) to the medium known as air.

   Consider the evolution of aircraft from '47 to '82, and try, if you
can, to envision the spacecraft of 35 years hence!
-------

------------------------------

Date:  1 Sep 1982 0034-EDT
From: Ron <FISCHER at RUTGERS>
Subject: Summary of reponses to "What the night sky really looks like"
To: space at MIT-MC, Hoffarth.wbst at PARC-MAXC

Recently I sent a message asking for suggestions about how to get into
Skygazing.

There is a heavily edited and reformatted copy of the replies I
received in the file <FISCHER>SKYGAZING.REPLIES at RUTGERS.  It can be
FTP'ed by the usual methods.

The responses describe various kinds of telescopes, mountings,
magazines, books, and lots of helpful suggestions.  All of the
information is of a very general nature (I guess).

Many thanks to all the people who were able to reply.

See you in a dark field...

(ron)
-------

------------------------------

Date: 1 September 1982 03:49-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: remote control mining
To: LRC.Slocum at UTEXAS-20
cc: space at MIT-AI

When I refer to mining, I really mean just scooping up the surface
soil, possibly spilling half of it due to clumbsiness, and dumping it
into a hopper for conveyance to the processing station.
I have in mind a solar-powered remote-control station on the moon, and
a servo based on position (not velocity or pressure). Thus once you
are trained, you just visualize where you want it to shovel on the TV
image and make the corresponding motion on Earth which takes place on
Moon later. You should be able to shovel several scoops of soil in a
batch, then go back after seeing what's left and shovel some of the
parts you missed. I can walk 10 or 20 steps with my eyes closed and
know when I am about to reach a curb I saw back at the start before I
closed my eyes. I can reach for objects with my eyes closed providing
I've located them beforehand. I can spot all the clutter on my floor,
turn off the lights, and then walk across to my bed in the dark,
stepping over the clutter I can no longer see. I figure I can locate
the places I want to shovel on the moon and then get most of them
without visual feedback.  At least I'm confident enough I'd like to
try the experiment on Earth using artificial feedback delay to prove
it could be done on the Moon with real feedback delay.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #290    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 290

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V2 #289    
	      Standard methods for getting SKYGAZING.REPLIES
			  Remote control mining
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 September 1982 10:40-EDT
From: Stewart Cobb <HSC at MIT-MC>
Subject:  SPACE Digest V2 #289    
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

   Development of computer software and servo technology which will
allow us to do useful work remotely despite the speed-of-light lag
(2-3 seconds to Moon, much longer to Mars and such) is one of the
things that will probably have to be done eventually as we go to work
in space, but which can be R&D'd right here on Earth with only a small
investment in hardware.  The other such project which comes to mind is
the development of a successful closed ecology which can keep several
humans alive for a year or more.  If you start small (i.e. rats
instead of humans) this can be researched by individuals or small
groups without expending a whole lot of money.  Indeed, closed
ecologies were popular science fair projects back in the Fifties and
Sixties.  Unfortunately, interest seems to have waned about the time
the "ecology" movement became popular.

   On another topic, there may be a little confusion caused by the
fact that there are TWO groups known by the acronym SSI.  The Space
Studies Institute, O'Neill's group in Princeton, does low-budget (but
high-quality) research like the projects mentioned above.  Space
Services, Inc., is a private company attempting to develop a private
orbital launch service (something like OTRAG).  They blew up a
liquid-fueled booster of their own design (the Percheron) late last
summer; supposedly they're going to try again with a different rocket
on September 8.  There's also a group with the acronym STS (Space
Transportation Services, I think), also based in Princeton.  They have
a financial slant -- last spring they offered to buy the fifth Shuttle
orbiter from Rockwell ($1 billion) and give it to NASA, in return for
being allowed to handle the marketing of launch services for ALL the
Shuttles.  I don't know what ever became of that offer.
                                Stewart (hsc@mit-mc)

------------------------------

Date:  1 Sep 1982 1520-EDT
From: Ron <FISCHER at RUTGERS>
Subject: Standard methods for getting SKYGAZING.REPLIES
To: space at MIT-MC

FTP to RUTGERS and login with name ANONYMOUS and any password.  The
file is in <FISCHER>SKYGAZING.REPLIES.

Sorry if anyone missed it first time around.  I'll keep it online for
about a month or so.

(ron)

------------------------------

Date: 2 September 1982 02:49-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Remote control mining
To: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: 1 Sep 1982 09:08 PDT
    From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
    Why the insistence on Earth-based control of the mining machine?
It's simpler to get it working that way. Eventually we want to
automate it. With remote control, we need only solve the problems of
getting the device there and maintaining communication with it. With
automatic control we have to in addition find an algorithm that can
replace a human worker, and debug it. Remember even the Voyager didn't
make its own decisions, we radioed a sequence of commands to it and it
merely executed them by rote. It took days to figure out a change
before we could safely radio it up. We couldn't use interactive
control because (1) too many things had to be done in too short a
time, (2) the radio (speed of light) delay was much more than 3
seconds (more like a half hour each way) making interaction
impossible, (3) motions had to be more precise than a human could do
by servo. On the moon we have plenty of time to stop and retry
something without losing a once-in-a-lifetime chance, only 3-second
total delay, and no need to be especially unclumbsy.
    One possible way of positioning would be for the lander unit to shoot out
    lengths of fine wire which could be several hundred meters long
    and would be energized with a signal which the mining rover could detect.
One more system that can fail. But maybe worth trying the second or
third time.
    1) Can a suitable mining area be located from lunar orbit (i.e. do
    you need to actually sift the sand or can you use remote-sensing
    techniques)? 
    2) Can a payload be set down in that area with suitable
    positioning accuracy? 
    [I think present art would indicate "Yes" on both counts].
Good questions. Is SSI or anybody working on them? Re accurate
locating, a rover to move from landing spot to work spot would help,
as would a navagation system for the Moon similar to the one currently
planned for Earth, allowing travel to within a couple meters of each
other merely by subtracting coordinates and traveling "toward" each
other accordingly. Anybody working on accurate lunar navigation?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #291    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 291

Today's Topics:
		       Excerpts from New Scientist
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 2 September 1982  22:27-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To:   space at MIT-MC
Subject: Excerpts from New Scientist
Cc:   webb at CMU-20C

Here are some excerpts from the New Scientist of 26 August 1982.  New
Scientist is a British weekly science magazine.

BRAZIL SET TO JOIN THE SPACE SUPERPOWERS
Brazil plans to become by 1987 the eighth country to demonstrate it can
life into space a satellite with its own rocket.  The drive to join the
select list of nations in this category comes partly as a result of
military ambitions.  The satellite of about 250 kg would be launched on
a rocket under development at the Institute of Space Activities in San
Jose near Sao Paulo.

The institute, which military officers control, is working on the
solid-propellant rocket primarily to carry warheads.  But, according to
Nelson de Jesus Parada, the director general of Brazil's civilian
Institute for Space Research, the home-made launcher will take into
space during the late 1980s a series of four satellites that have purely
peaceful applications.

...Two of the craft will be for remote sensing, with resolution
comparable to Landsat.  ... The other two will be for telecomunications,
handling streams of digital data from transponders around the country.

... The space program costs Brazil about 20 million pounds/year.  They
are also buying some satellites which they will place into orbit using
Ariane. ...

INDIA'S ROCKET COULD MEET MILITARY AMBITIONS
Doubts are growing over whether India plans to keep its rocket programme
solely for launching satellites rather than warheads.  The solid
propellant using in the country's SLV-3 launcher ... is ideally suited
for missiles.  Indian observers think that within six months of a
political decision, engineers ... could convert the SLV-3 into a missile
with a range of 2000 km. ...

PRIVATE SHUTTLE FIRM AWAITS GOVERNMENT GO-AHEAD
Space Transportion [sic], the company that wants to become the world's
first private operator of a re-usable space craft, expect to know by the
end of the year if the US government will let it go ahead with its
plans.  The company [called Spacetran]...wants to buy a space shuttle
for $1000 million and operate it from 1987.

[The president of Spacetran] says he expects the military to book 30 --
40% of the flights.  The government says NASA will need a little less
than half.

... To take a full shuttle load of 30 tonnes into space will cost
roughly $70 million...

READY FOR THE SHUTTLE?
Are you American and have you some skill at composing poetry or wielding
a paint brush?  If so, then you have a shance of making an early trip
into space.  A NASA committe is considering the criteria under which
ordinary citizens can qualify for joining the crew of a space shuttle
when the shuttle programme is operating in top gear in 1987.  At this
point, one of a fleet of space planes will journey into orbit every
fortnight.  James Beggs, the administrator of NASA, says that his
government will not sell tickets for trips into space.  Instead, it will
judge which people are likely to gain the most from such a jaunt into
the heavens.  At the top of the list are journalists, painters, and
photographers.  Folk who, in the opinion of NASA, can share their
experiences with the millions of others who will never have the
oppourtunity to leave the Earth's atmosphere.

If readers have any thoughts on who should be among the fortunates to
make the shuttle crew, the had better write to NASA before it finishes
its deliberations next year.

[Note: from other sources (National Public Radio) I have heard that one
of the tradition hindrances to going -- poor vision requiring eyeglasses
-- will not apply to these passengers].

Jon

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #292    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 292

Today's Topics:
		       Survey of Tracking Programs
	    Private company to launch spacecraft: Houston (AP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  3 Sep 1982 0902-EDT
From: Rodger D. Osgood <RDO at MIT-XX>
Subject: Survey of Tracking Programs
To: space at MIT-MC

    I am interested in finding out what satellite tracking/prediction programs
are available. Several other people have expressed similar interest on this
list, so I would like to take a survey. Please send me information on programs
that find the positions of satellites, that you have or know of. I would like to
know:

The general capabilities of the program. Does it find position? lighting on the
satellite/observer? ground station acquisition and loss? other? What units/form
is the output in?

The information that the program needs to have input to it.

The language/operating system/machine that the program runs on.

The availability/cost of the program.

Other comments, good or bad experiences

     I will compile the results and report back to the list. Thanks in advance.

rodger
RDO@XX
-------

------------------------------

Date:  3 Sep 1982 1231-EDT
From: Lantz at RUTGERS (Brian Lantz)
Subject: Private company to launch spacecraft: Houston (AP)
To: space at MIT-MC

A 37-foot surplus military rocket is poised on a sandy Texas
island, ready for the first launch of a spacecraft by private enterprise,
a Houston company announced yesterday.

"We're confident it's going to work like a charm," said Donald K. Slayton,
a former astronaut who is mission director for the launch attempt next
Wednesday north of Corpus Christi.

The solid-fueled rocket, named Conestoga I, is scheduled to carry a dummy
payload to 192 miles above the earth, where it will eject a shower of ice
crystals and then fall into the Gulf of Mexico about 320 miles from the
Matagorda island launch pad after a flight of about 10.5 minutes.

Space Services Inc. of Houston is spending about $2.5 million for the project.

A liquid-fueled rocket financed by the company exploded on the launch pad last
year during testing, something company officials said won't happen with the
simpler solid-fueled rocket.

Slayton said the Conestoga I is built around a Minuteman I second-stage rocket
engine that has a long history of successful lauches.  The company purchased
the rocket from the government for $365,000.

Asked how confident he was the rocket would work, Slayton said, "About 99.4
percent."
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #293    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 293

Today's Topics:
       Remote mining using AI to alleviate speed-of-light problems
		     Please remove me from your list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 82 23:16:48-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!fortune!megatest!sun!gnu at Ucb-C70
Subject: Remote mining using AI to alleviate speed-of-light problems
Article-I.D.: sun.107
Via:  Usenet; 6 Sep 82 3:41-PDT

I seem to recall an article by Larry Niven and/or Jerry Pournelle
a year or so ago about remote mining on the moon, using artificial
intelligence techniques on the remote end to avoid the robot's breaking
things (or itself) during the round-trip delay.  It wouldn't have to be
able to run itself -- just stop itself.  Maybe JEP or someone can provide
the reference?  (It could have been the space advisory board report.)

------------------------------

Date: 6 September 1982  11:39-EDT (Monday)
From: K. Shane Hartman <Shane at MIT-XX>
To:   space at mit-mc
Subject: Please remove me from your list.

I will read space with a bboard program here.

Thanks,

Shane
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #294    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 294

Today's Topics:
			looking for Bob Markevitch
			qualifications for shuttle
			    SPACE ANNIVERSARY
			    Lunar Telepresence
			   Lunar Teleopresence
			Phase 3-B Launch Date Set
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  7 Sep 1982 2018-EDT
From: Rodger D. Osgood <RDO at MIT-XX>
Subject: looking for Bob Markevitch
To: space at MIT-MC

Sorry to put this on the list, but I haven't been able to get a message though
directly.  Bob, I think I have the info that you want, please tell me how to
get mail to you from the ARPA net.

thanx
rodger
RDO@XX
-------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 1982 20:52:36-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: qualifications for shuttle

   A recent story here mentioned that NASA was looking for types who could
communicate [the wonders of space] to everyone who can't go, and that these
passengers would not be required to fit the current shuttle physical
requirements, specifically not needing glasses.
   In fact, mission specialists already have much looser physical requirements
than pilots and other traditional spacemen; I believe you're allowed as bad as
20/40 in one eye and 20/30 in the other, which is quite bad enough to require
glasses. (I should remember this more closely, since I filled out one of the
first set of applications, but it has been several years. What I most remember
is Joe Haldeman saying he couldn't make it because of poor hearing. . . .)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 82 9:04:43-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxv!dimario at Ucb-C70
Subject: SPACE ANNIVERSARY
Article-I.D.: ihuxv.279
Via:  Usenet; 7 Sep 82 21:06-PDT

Sept 3rd is the anniversary of Viking 2 landing on Mars. Too bad
we cannot see more such anniversaries.

                                             mjd
                                             ihuxv

------------------------------

Date:  8 Sep 1982 0034-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-OZ>
Subject: Lunar Telepresence
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: minsky at MIT-OZ

The effect of time-delay on remote manipulation will depend on
the time-scale of what you are manipulating.  The human sensory-motor
reaction loop is of the order of 1/5 of a second.  As you know,
things fall 16 feet in the first second, and there's a square-root
scaling for that.  So you can catch something that falls out of your
hand in half a foot or so.

The lunar gravity is about 1/7th ours.  The lunar round-trip time
delay is about 12/5 seconds, and if we add our own delay we get 13/5.
So if you consider gravity scaling, then lunar teleoperation should be
sort of like you are twice as slow as here!  That is, you ought
to be able to catch something before it falls two feet.

Now, we will be building lunar structures that are large, because of
the low-G.  Perhaps they'll be 4 times as high, and yet use weaker
materials!  Then you can catch them just the same as here - when you
scale everything!  How's that for an optimistic way to look at it?

Seriously (but I was, actually), most space-structure work will use
very delicate materials.  That, after all, is the great thing about
building stuff out there.  Then, the manipulation speeds will be
limited, not by reaction time but by the gentleness needed for
handling.  You simply cannot accelerate those aluminum-foil girders
very much or they will bend and crinkle.  So space teleoperation will
not suffer from delay very much, because you will have to plan your
motions many seconds ahead, or even minutes, to avoid collisions.  If
you jerk to avoid an unexpected collision you might do more harm than
good abyway.

Finally, of course robotic AI systems can work fast locally.  If you
want to take your analog wrist-watch apart it will take a long time,
by remote control, but presumably such tiny work will be the exception.

Epilogue: it infuriates me that there seems to be still no substantial
research on telepresence.  There are a few little projects here and
there, but none of much significance.  Still, no one seems to be
fabricating a decently humanoid remote hand, either.  Foo on the U.S.
if some other culture  beats us on this, another of the obviously
enormous industries of the not far-away future that we will miss out on.

-------

------------------------------

Date:  8 Sep 1982 0048-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-OZ>
Subject: Lunar Teleopresence
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: minsky at MIT-OZ

Ooops.  Off by noticeable factor.  Thing falls about 12 feet
before you can catch it.  That makes it pretty hard to catch.
Better not drop anything.  Other arguments OK.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 82 20:49:05-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Phase 3-B Launch Date Set
Article-I.D.: eagle.499
Via:  Usenet; 7 Sep 82 22:57-PDT

The European Space Agency (ESA) has announced that the launch of Ariane
L-7 carrying ECS-1 and Amsat Phase 3-B will take place on 3 Feb 1983.

No launch time was announced, but from earlier planning documents, there
will probably be two launch windows, each about 2 hours long, centered
around 0200 and 1330 UTC.

The launch of L-7 has been delayed not due to problems with the Ariane
launch vehicle, but to design problems with the ECS-1 spacecraft.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #295    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 295

Today's Topics:
			more on magnetic monopoles
		      Columbia to go to VAB Thursday
			       SRB Recovery
			 Conestoga launch delayed
			  Shuttle Qualifications
		 An interesting Galilean development    
		    space mining and computer graphics
			       SSI address
			    Lunar Telepresence
			       Making Jobs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 82 15:01:31-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!fortune!megatest!yin at Ucb-C70
Subject: more on magnetic monopoles

  I understand that Cabrera, the researcher at Stanford who came up
with the recent candidate monopole event, has a new detector about
to come on-line.  This one consists of 3 superconducting loops, of about
30x(?) the original area, arranged so that the loops are orthogonal.
This should give greater sensitivity, allow the detection of monopoles
passing through a space rather than a plane, give some indication of
the path and make event detection independent of fluctuations within
individual loops.

  The original loop had a detection area of 20 cm^2.  With this set-up
an event occured after 151 days, giving an upper limit to the isotropic
distribution of moving particles of 0.53 /m^2/sr/d. If certain assumptions
are made wrt grand unified theories, the actual value might be as much
as 0.3 /m^2/sr/d. The event that was detected looks very convincing,
judging by the details given in a preprint to Phys Rev Letters. The set-up
was designed so that a monopole event would induce a current equivalent
to 8 superconducting flux quanta. The detected event had a value of about 
7.5 flux quanta. No other event, including known disturbances (liquid
helium, liquid nitrogen transfers, power fluctuations, rfi, etc), exceeded
values of 2 flux quanta, with the exception of impulses to the set-up.
These sometimes approached 6 flux quanta, however, there were no seismic
disturbances recorded on the day of the event and the laboratory was
unoccupied. External magnetic fields were attenuated 180 dB by shielding.

  Btw, should be interesting if monopoles are confirmed. If grand unified
theories are right, a magnetic monopole will have a mass of about
10^16 Gev, something like a small paramecium. (Of course there is still
the intermediate vector baseball with a mass of about 10^18 Gev.) The
familiar Maxwell's equations will also have to add on some terms:

                    div B = 4 * pi * rho 
                                        m

                            1   dB     4 * pi
                 - curl E = - * --  +  ------ * J
                            c   dt       c       m





                                         Yin Shih
                                         Megatest, Santa Clara

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 82 7:27:05-EDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Columbia to go to VAB Thursday

Fifty five days after she landed, the space shuttle Columbia will
be rolled to the Vehicle Assembly Building this Thursday.  There it
will be mated with its external tank and two (new) SRB's  Rollout
to the launch pad is scheduled for 21 September, and launch is
still scheduled for 11 November.  Preparations for launch are about
1 day ahead of schedule.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 82 22:35:45-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: SRB Recovery

A Naval vessel and a rocket retrieval ship owned by United
Technologies left Port Canaveral Friday and started sailing
towards the site where the Columbia's 2 SRB's are under water.
They will attempt this week to raise a 40-foot long piece of
one booster, complete with two parachutes and a flight recorder.

------------------------------

Date: 08 Sep 1982 1023-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Conestoga launch delayed
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a059  0415  08 Sep 82
PM-Private Rocket,490
Space Rocket Launch Delayed Until Thursday
By PAUL RECER
AP Aerospace Writer
    MATAGORDA ISLAND, Texas (AP) - Failure of a battery and a guidance
instrument forced officials of the first privately financed U.S. space
rocket to put a hold on its launch until Thursday.
    Space Services Inc. of America announced the postponement Tuesday
night, just 12 hours before the planned 10 a.m. launch of the unmanned
Conestoga I rocket.
    Mission director Donald K. Slayton, a former astronaut, said the
launch team first found a failed battery and then discovered a faulty
gyroscope - a guidance instrument - aboard the 37-foot-tall rocket
Tuesday.
    He said the battery was replaced and that the gyroscope could also
be replaced by working through the night. But Slayton decided instead
on the postponement to give his 31-man launch team time to rest.
    ''The same guys that do the checking also do the repairs and they
are getting run down,'' said Slayton. ''We decided to fall back and
regroup so they could recharge their batteries.''
    The Conestoga I rocket is built around the second stage of a
Minuteman missle. It is designed to make a 10 1/2-minute suborbital
flight to an altitude of 192 miles, then splash into the Gulf of
Mexico 321 miles from its island launch pad.
    Space Services founder and board chairman David Hannah said launch
of the Conestoga is ''pivotal'' to success of the company. The Houston
real estate investor said the launch must be successful for Space
Services to go on with plans to assemble a launch system capable of
putting satellites into orbit.
    Space Services purchased the Minuteman stage in the Conestoga for
$365,000 and the entire launch operation is costing about $2.5
million. It is being financed by 57 investors.
    The Conestoga I is to carry a dummy payload to a point above the
Earth where it will separate from the rocket engine, go into a rapid
spin and dump 400 pounds of water. The water will fall as a cloud of
ice crystals, Slayton said.
    The maneuvers are to demonstrate the company's ability to assemble
and launch a spacecraft, Slayton said. Such maneuvers must also be
performed during the launch of an orbital satellite, he said.
    Hannah, during an earlier news conference, said Space Services ''was
on trial'' in the Conestoga project because of the failure last year
of another rocket system.
    The Houston company paid for the assembly of a liquid-fueled rocket
and was preparing to launch it from another Matagorda Island pad when
the vehicle exploded during a pre-launch test. The rocket, called
Percheon, disintegrated in a fireball that rose 200 feet.
    Hannah said the accident set the company's goals back by more than
six months and forced selection of another launch team and of another
type of rocket, the simpler solid-fueled engine of the Minuteman I.
    He predicted if the Conestoga launch is successful, his company
could have a satellite launching system operating by 1984 with up to
one launch a month thereafter. But he added no customer has signed a
contract with the company.
    
ap-ny-09-08 0715EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date:  8 Sep 1982 1507-EDT
From: Clifford V. R. Ludwi <LUDWIG at MIT-XX>
Subject: Shuttle Qualifications
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: ludwig at MIT-XX

   I seem to remember John Young wearing bi-focal glasses during the
first shuttle flight.  Several shots of the command deck showed
him studying a checklist or some such papers while wearing glasses.
                  Cliff (Ludwig@MIT-XX)

------------------------------

Date: 08 Sep 1982 1422-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: An interesting Galilean development    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

According to the San Francisco Chronicle (never a particularly reliable
source), NASA is considering the use of a gravity assist in getting
the Galileo probe to Jupiter.  The reason for this possible change in
plans is the cancellation of the wide-body Centaur upper stage.

The interesting thing about the gravity whip maneuver is the choice of
targets.  Apparently, the plan is to make a high-speed flyby of your
favorite planet and mine, namely Earth.

This brings up the rather interesting question of what can be learned
from an Earth flyby.  It seems like it might be good practice for an
interstellar probe looking for a habitable planet, but development of
that kind of technology is unlikely in the time frame involved.
Anybody got any ideas???

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 82 9:04:29-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxi!deimos!ariel!houti!trc at Ucb-C70
Subject: space mining and computer graphics

Remote space mining might also be aided by computer graphics. 
The robot mining tool could be simulated, and overlaid upon the 
video image (or even a  computer simulation of the image, constantly
updated to match the received version).  This would provide the 
operator with immediate feedback sufficient to allow work without
much confusion.  An additional delay could also be added, so that
when a simulated catastrophe occurs, the operator could cancel the
last few seconds of operation.  The extra second or so wouldnt
make much difference, and could save millions in damaged  equipment.

				Tom Craver
				houti!trc

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 1982 9:04-PDT
From: dietz.usc-cse at UDel-Relay
Subject: SSI address
To: space at Mit-Mc

I don't remember if the Space Studies Institute's address was given, so
here it is:

	Space Studies Institute
	195 Nassau Street
	P.O. Box 82
	Princeton, NJ  08540

A one year subscription costs:

	$10	Student
	$15	Subscriber
	$25	Contributor
	$50	Donor
	$100	Patron
	$200 to 500
		Sponsor

Donations are tax deductible.

------------------------------

Date: 9 September 1982 01:38-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Lunar Telepresence
To: MINSKY at MIT-OZ
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Note that I was not proposing the use of 3-sec-delay remote-control
for fabricating aluminum girders, merely for stuffing ore into a
hopper for tossing out to space (with or without preliminary
processing on the moon before the toss). Thus the problem of fragile
materials and "dropping things" won't exist. Once ore gets off the moon
it's trivial to move it to LEO where there are plenty of voluteers to
handle it locally. The reason for suggesting telepresence on the moon
is it's a real pain to maintain human crews there, whereas LEO and
even lunar orbit are easy by comparison. The reason for suggesting
telepresence between Earth and Moon instead of between lunar-orbit and
Moon or LEO and Moon, is that telepresence may be very clumbsy, taking
lots of time even to do loading of ore, so using an astronaut's time
would be cost-ineffective, whereas using the time of an Earther would
be reasonable, even with the 3-sec problem. A lot of out-of-work
Earthers could be employed as remote manipulator miners. (Hey Reagan,
did you hear that? A solution to unemployment!)

------------------------------

Date:  9 Sep 1982 0220-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-OZ>
Subject: Making Jobs
To: rem at MIT-MC
cc: space at MIT-MC

Agree fully.

Here are all those people worrying about the lunar teleoperator
being slow.  I bet that for about 100 megabucks or so we could
have had a slow remote builder on the Moon for the last
whole decade.  It could have moved slowly, using a few dozen watts
of thermal or photovoltaic power, and those cute wax-powered
thermal motors, painted black on one side, white on the other.
Imagine what we could have done in those 3,000,000 one-minute
manipulations.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #296    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 296

Today's Topics:
		      Conestoga launch is a success
	   Ariane, shuttle, Centaur, space station, lasers,...
		  Re: space mining and computer graphics
		   Wanted: Info on Bell Labs and space
			    Conestoga I Launch
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 09 Sep 1982 1059-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at SU-AI>
Subject: Conestoga launch is a success
To:   space at MIT-MC  

a113  0900  09 Sep 82
PM-Private Rocket, 2nd Ld, a107,200
URGENT
Eds: Lead with 6 grafs with additional details and splashdown
By PAUL RECER
AP Aerospace Writer
    MATAGORDA ISLAND, Texas (AP) - Conestoga 1 blasted off from this
isolated island today, becoming the first privately financed
spacecraft launched in the United States, and flew a 10 1/2-minute
mission exactly as planned before splashing down.
    The gleaming white, 37-foot rocket was launched from a pasture into
a clear blue sky about 15 minutes behind schedule. It climbed
unhesitatingly to a suborbital altitude of 192 miles as 300 spectators
applauded.
    The rocket arced over the Gulf, where a dummy payload separated and
spewed 400 pounds of water into the vacuum of space. The payload and
rocket splashed down 321 miles from the launch pad.
    More than 100 reporters and about 200 guests - many of them
investors in Space Services Inc. of America - watched the launch and
burst into applause as it disappeared from view.
    Donald K. ''Deke'' Slayton, a former astronaut who directed the
mission for Space Services, had said before the launch that weather
was the only problem facing the flight.
    Thunderstorms threatened to interfere with the launch. SSI had said
the weather was expected to be clear between 10 a.m. and noon, and
the launch was scheduled during that weather ''window.''
    ''We did it, we did it!'' shouted one executive of SSI after the
10:15 a.m. launch. Company officials had called Conestoga ''the
future'' of their business and said it would help boost private
industry into space.
    The guests and reporters had traveled by boat to the island before
dawn. Many of the guests arrived in a festive mood, dressed as for a
lawn party, and dined on shrimp and sandwiches as the countdown
proceeded.
    The countdown for launch went almost precisely as planned, with only
a couple of brief holds when data communications were lost
momentarily.
    Officials said the rocket performed as expected, establishing that
SSI is capable of organizing and controlling a rocket launch.
    The rocket properly aligned itself for orbital injection, a maneuver
that will be essential when SSI attempts to put satellites into
space. This craft, however, was not designed to achieve orbit.
    
ap-ny-09-09 1216EDT
***************

------------------------------

Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-G received by CMU-10A at 9-Sep-82 14:44:57-EDT
Date: 9 Sep 1982 14:02:07-EDT
From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-780G at CMU-10A
Subject: Ariane, shuttle, Centaur, space station, lasers,...

The 10 September 1982 issue of Science contains several space articles.
One deals with the technical & political aspects of Arianespace vs. NASA.
Another discusses a controversy over modifying the Centaur for use as a
high energy upper stage for the shuttle.  A briefing notes congressional
action on laser battle stations (more study, no demo yet).  Research News
covers various space station proposals and who would use them to do what.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 82 13:35:49-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: space mining and computer graphics
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2606
Via:  Usenet; 9 Sep 82 21:00-PDT

References: houti.150

This is slightly off the subject, but I couldn't help but be reminded
of it.  

When I was in graduate school at the University of Tennessee, two other
graduate students were working on a real-time image inhancement system
targeted for use in the Space Shuttle.  Part of the shuttle's remote
repair system included a camera located on the maintenance robot,
allowing the crew to direct activity from within the cabin.  As
position and illumination conditions changed, the view could easily go
from extremely bright to quite dark, and most points between.  Using
the real-time image inhancement system, the camera's picture could be
interactively adjusted by the crew (using direct histogram
specification), allowing almost instantaneous correction and providing
a consistantly good view.  Input was from a special controller that
used several slide potentiometers to approximate the desired histogram
(very much like a hi-fi graphic equalizer).

I saw the system under test conditions, and it performed very well.
It was quite easy to use, and one rapidly got surprisingly good at
manipulating the histogram and improving the "picture".  (Now, if
I could do the same with my TV...)

					David Bryant
					 cbosg!djb

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 82 22:39:48-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!physics!mam at Ucb-C70
Subject: Wanted: Info on Bell Labs and space
Article-I.D.: physics.183
Via:  Usenet; 9 Sep 82 21:49-PDT

	I'm looking for info on the general subject of btl involvement
with space. This includes satellites or gizmos to go on satellites,
space manufacturing/mining ideas, contracts or other arrangements with
NASA, jobs related to space, etc. Please send replies to

		Matthew Marcus
		{mhtsa or alice}!physics!mam

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 82 15:38:26-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Conestoga I Launch
Article-I.D.: alice.908
Via:  Usenet; 10 Sep 82 1:37-PDT

Space Services, Inc., made their first successful launch today,
as Conestoga I lifted off from Matagorda, Texas.  It was the
first time that a privately owned company has launch a rocket.
The surplus Minuteman solid motor, bought from NASA for $356K,
carried the rocket up to a suborbital flight where it released
its payload, 400 pounds of water; both fell into the Gulf of
Mexico later, just as planned.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #297    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 297

Today's Topics:
				  luna 2
			 Ariane L5 Launch Tonight
			     Ariane L5 status
		      Apparent Ariane Launch Failure
		       Ariane Launch Failure Update
			      Ariane crashed
			  Eyeglasses on shuttle
	   Re: SPACE Digest V2 #296, remote-controlled mining.
			     Firsts, seconds 
			      Shuttle in VAB
				  waldos
				   l-5
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 82 14:33:09-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxi!hocsb!hocsh!dcs at Ucb-C70
Subject: luna 2

September 12th is the anniversary of Luna 2, the 1st craft to impact
another celestial body. (1959) (from the Kitt Peak Obs. Calendar)

				Doug

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 82 19:05:35-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Ariane L5 Launch Tonight

The fifth Eurpean Space Agency Ariane rocket will be launched at 0230
UTC September 10, 1982 (10:30PM EDT September 9).

This mission will be carrying the MARECS-B maritime geostationary
communications satellite.  No amateur spacecraft is aboard this time.

Amsat Phase III-B will be carried on the 7th launch now scheduled for
February 3, 1983.

Phil Karn, KA9Q

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 82 22:48:40-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Ariane L5 status

The latest word on the Ariane L5 launch:

Telemetry was apparently lost during the third stage burn while
the launcher was being tracked by the Ascension Island tracking station.
It is not clear at this point whether there was a third stage malfunction,
a telemetry system failure or a ground equipment problem.

Phil Karn, KA9Q

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 82 23:45:31-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Apparent Ariane Launch Failure

>From a special Amsat net:
The liftoff of Ariane L5 took place at 02:12:03.33 UTC Sept 10, 1982.

The first and second stage flight appeared to be nominal.  However,
expected acquisition at Ascension island was NOT nominal. When the
launcher was finally acquired late, it was apparently not on the planned
trajectory; it appeared lower than expected.

This occurred at about 12 minutes into the flight, about 2 minutes before
the scheduled end of the third stage burn.

It is not yet known whether the payload actually made it into an orbit, but
even if it did, it is highly unlikely that the two payloads could be placed
into the intended geostationary orbit.

It does appear that the problem was either with the third stage engine
or with the guidance system; the exact cause is not yet known.

Fortunately (for us), there was no amateur radio satellite aboard this
flight.  However, it is a foregone conclusion that this apparent failure
can only delay the scheduled launch date for Amsat Phase III-B (3 Feb
1983).

Phil Karn, KA9Q

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 82 1:50:08-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Ariane Launch Failure Update

For the second time, an Ariane rocket has launched a submarine
satellite.

Its official; the third stage on L5 shut down early for unknown reasons,
and the launcher and its two satellites impacted in the middle of the
Atlantic Ocean.

This makes a track record so far consisting of 3 successes (L01, L03, L04)
and two failures (L02 and L5).

------------------------------

Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-G received by CMU-10A at 10-Sep-82 11:33:44-EDT
Date: 10 Sep 1982 11:32:14-EDT
From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-780G at CMU-10A
Subject: Ariane crashed

According to the BBC World Service, the first commercial Ariane crashed
into the sea a few minutes after launch.  The first two stages functioned,
but the third stage failed.  Two satellites were aboard.

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 10 September 1982  11:20-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
To:   Space at MIT-MC
Subject: Eyeglasses on shuttle
Cc:   webb at CMU-20C

I heard that the shuttle crew per se is supposed to have good vision,
not requiring eyeglasses.  Mission specialists are supposed to have
vision good enough so that if they lost their eyeglasses, they would be
able to find them.  Apparently, this requirement has been relaxed
further for the passengers who will not be performing any important
functions on the mission, other than enjoying the ride.

Jon

------------------------------

Date:  10 September 1982 15:28 edt
From:  Spratt.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Re: SPACE Digest V2 #296, remote-controlled mining.
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 10 September 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson

There was a project in the Man-Machine Systems Laboratory at MIT around
1977 to build an remote-controlled underwater exploration vehicle.  The
problem here was that the communications with the vehicle (which had a TV
camera mounted on it) was done via sonar (very narrow bandwidth
communications).  To get a picture transmitted required about 8 seconds.
Well, actually, the total time delay on dealing with the vehicle was 8
seconds, but transmission of the picture was the bulk of the delay.  The
approach in this project was not to put intelligence in the vehicle, but
have a detailed model of the world of the vehicle which was used to
predict the effects of operator decisions.  The graphic display to the
operator depicted the last actual picture and the predicted modifcations
in a fashion which made it possible for the operator to easily tell which
was which.

Someone must still be doing this sort of work, and it seems like it would be
readily applicable to the extraterrestrial remote-control problem.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 1982 1311-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Firsts, seconds 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

	Contrary to several of the news reports, the Space Services
Conestoga rocket was NOT the first rocket launched by a privately
owned company.  Even discounting small sounding rockets, the German
based company OTRAG had two successful launches comparable to
the SSIsuborbital one, and with a liquid fueled rocket of their own
design, in the late seventies.

	There were about a half dozen NASA funded research projects
in the early sixties that studied remote control of a lunar rover
from Earth, using a 2.5 sec time delay in the control loop.
Many of these had (primitive) predictors, where a dot in the image
showed where the vehicle would be is the speed and direction were
unchanged over the next 2.5 secs.  The Stanford AI lab cart was a
refugee from such a project conducted by the Stanford Mech E. dept.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 82 7:27:24-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle in VAB
Article-I.D.: alice.912
Via:  Usenet; 10 Sep 82 18:17-PDT

The Columbia was rolled to the Vehicle Assembly Building last night
about 18 hours behind schedule.  The delay was mostly due to a short
circuit in the transformer that helps to open the VAB doors.  There
it will stay until about the 21st, when it will be rolled to the pad
for final preparations for the 11 November launch.

------------------------------

Date: 11 September 1982 02:49-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: waldos
To: REM at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

	That was an article by me, on the summer project NASA
funded on self-replicating systems.  I picked Minsky's brain for
a couple of days while we were cooped up in Pajaro Dunes.

It was either in Destinies or Analog, I think the last thing I
did for Destinies, and was entitled "Nunc Dimmittis..."

------------------------------

Date: 11 September 1982 04:03-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: l-5
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

The gentleman who declined to renew his membership is welcome to
his opinion.  Others have different views.  Ones with different
views on the L-5 Board include Heinlein, Kantrowitz, and a
number of aerospace managers like Gordon Woodcock of Boeing.
Some with different views who are members include astronauts and
company presidents (Fred Haise of apollo 13 was guest of honor
at the L-5 convention last spring; Hans Mark of Nasa was keynote
speaker).


Re: SSI of Houston and "rational approaches."  I am not certain
I understand what engineering contribution launching a
miniuteman upper stage makes as opposed to trying to develop a
cheap liquid rocket.  Certainly using a minuteman upper stage is
more rational if all you want to do is get your rocket off the
pad and have it splash in the Gulf of Mexico instead of scaring
the alligator.
	Gary Hudson who did the Percheron was at the World SF
convention recently and we had a long discussion about the "new"
and the old SSI approaches.  It may be the new approach is "more
rational" as said in the recent space digest, but it is not
utterly obvious.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #298    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 298

Today's Topics:
		     Shuttle crew vision requirements
			       telepresence
				   L-5
			  Ariane launch failure
			Rationality of SSI launch
			  Shuttle on Mobile Pad
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 82 20:07:59-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!unc!tim at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle crew vision requirements
Article-I.D.: unc.3950
Via:  Usenet; 11 Sep 82 4:29-PDT

A couple of years back, I saw a NASA recruitment
pamphlet on a college bulletin board. This was
quite specific in listing requirements for shuttle
crews; unfortunately, I didn't take it, because
my vision is lousy. However, I seem to recall that
pilot vision had to be no worse than 20/40 or so,
and support crew vision could be at worst 20/100.
(Of course, all vision had to be carrectable to
20/20.)

Surely NASA isn't so broke that there isn't at
least one UNIX system somewhere? How's about
some answers, guys?
			Tim Maroney
			tim@unc

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 1982 1151-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-OZ>
Subject: telepresence
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: minsky at MIT-OZ

There is a remote-controlled mini-submarine project at
the Naval Ocean Systems Laboratory (San Diego) in a group
headed by Paul Heckman.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 1982 1214-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-OZ>
Subject: L-5
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: minsky at MIT-OZ

The Pro-Space organizations have different goals and foci, so they are
not equivalent.  L-5, for example, is particularly interesting to me
because its board aspires to make space colonies happen some day.  I
regard that as important, not just for scientific reasons but because
I'm dubious that high-tech humans can survive on one planet throughout
the current transition from pre- to post-technology.  Probably members
of the Planetary Society also share such concerns as individuals, but
not so much in their highest level organization goals, which emphasize
science.

L-5's national meeting did indeed have a high technical content, and
was attended by space-involved people of large influence and
imagination.  I am on L-5's board because it attracts technical people
interested in projects like starship design and practical
colony-launching schemes.

Also, the different space clubs may also reflect different political
orientations.  This may affect your preference for what to join.  My
priority is to make it feasible that some humans survive the
forthcoming possible disasters, and because one can't predict what
politics will evolve in the colonies, I don't consider that aspect so
important.  In the long run, "better live than dead".
-------

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 82 22:51:55-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Ariane launch failure
Article-I.D.: eagle.508
Via:  Usenet; 11 Sep 82 19:57-PDT

I have no further real information yet on the Ariane launch failure that
occurred about 24 hours ago.  I did speak today with one of the people
at Goddard Space Flight Center whose job it was to process early
tracking data for orbit determination, and he basically confirmed what
we knew last night (and which I posted to the net).

He told me that the failure occurred sometime after scheduled loss of
signal at the Brazilian tracking station and before acquisition at the
NASA station on Ascension Island.  For this reason, there were no ground
telemetry recordings being made at the time the failure occurred.  This
may make the failure hard to analyze.  When the pass did occur over Ascension,
the launcher barely skimmed the horizon rather than appearing at the 12
degree maximum elevation that was predicted.  Due to the low elevation,
the S-band radar data was useless, although several minutes of VHF telemetry
data were apparently obtained.  This indicates that the launcher did not
simply explode, but that either the guidance system failed (less likely)
or the third stage engine shut down prematurely (more likely).

Part of the problem was that Kourou kept overriding the Ascension
tracking antennas, telling them that they were looking too low, while the
automatic tracking systems kept insisting that the pre-programmed look angles
were wrong.  This apparently resulted in intermittent telemetry loss.

NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) did not see anything in
orbit after the launch, including debris, so it is concluded that the
launcher and its payload broke up on re-entry and impacted in the
Atlantic northwest of Ascension.

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 1982 1533-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Rationality of SSI launch
To: space at MIT-MC


It all depends upon what it was suppose to do.  If it was suppose to
be a complete model for later launchings, then of course it is
irrational (you cannot live off of second hand NASA parts forever).
But it was NOT meant to be that.  As far as I know, SSI is still
committed to developing their own rocket, and this launch was largely
intended to 1) get rid of the problems associated with a launch that
are NOT dependent upon the rocket itself (so that you can later
concentrate on just perfecting the rocket), and 2) getting ANYTHING
up so as to attract more money.  The failure of the European rocket
was very fortunate in that it provided a feild day for reporters
to compare American private enterprize to European government work.

Jim

-------

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 82 10:12:23-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle on Mobile Pad
Article-I.D.: alice.915
Via:  Usenet; 12 Sep 82 2:17-PDT

The Columbia was being hoisted onto the mobile pad that will bring
her to the launch pad on 21 September last night; the operation
should have been done by 0200 EDT today.  Once on the platform,
she will be mated to the external tank and two SRB's and then
tested before actually being rolled out to pad 39A.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #299    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 299

Today's Topics:
		     Ariane Launch Failure Diagnosed
			  Ariane Flight Sequence
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 82 1:19:24-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Ariane Launch Failure Diagnosed

ESA has announced that it has determined the cause of the Ariane launch
failure Thursday night.  The problem was the third stage fuel pump.
4 minutes and 23 seconds into the third stage burn, the pump
slowed, and the engines lost power within three seconds and then stopped.

ESA says it will delay the next launch, originally scheduled for
November 23, will be delayed "weeks or months" so that the problem can
be fixed.

>From the available information, I estimate the final "orbit" of the
launcher had an apogee of 176 km and a "perigee" of -3,623 km.
Not exactly geostationary.

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 82 12:27:06-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Ariane Flight Sequence

I came across the following flight sequence for the Ariane in a standard
geostationary transfer orbit mission:

Event                   Time sec        Velocity km/sec         Altitude km
Liftoff                 0               0                       0
First stage sep         138             1.8                     43
Fairing jettison        244             3.65                    110
Second stage sep        272             4.66                    129
Injection               844             9.76                    210

The L5 flight shut down midway thru the third stage burn, at about T +
535 seconds.  The resulting altitude and velocity were about 175 km and
6 km/sec.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Sep-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #300    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 300

Today's Topics:
		       It's for the groundhogs, too
		     Re: It"s for the groundhogs, too
				Terra Park
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 82 16:28:07-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: It's for the groundhogs, too
Article-I.D.: watmath.3459
Via:  Usenet; 13 Sep 82 4:08-PDT

	Dr. Minsky's article on the L-5 society closed with the comment that
"[a] priority is to make it feasible for some humans to survive the possible
future disasters."
	With all respect to Dr. Minsky, I'd like to point out that it's
not likely that an L-5 colony wuld survive a Terran disaster. It is unlikely
that an L-5 colony would be self-sufficient, and thus any cutoff of space
travel means the end of it.
	Having said that, though, we all should note that an L-5 colony would
make these disasters - from nuclear war to eco-death - a damned sight less
likely.  In fact, an L-5 colony could - as Pournelle has suggested - make the
earth into a park.  (You need orbiting industries for that trick).
	Well, we all know that.  But we should be shouting it from the
rooftops.  The L-5 colony might be the dream of those of us who want to space,
but it means life for the groundhogs, too.
					Rick McGeer.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 82 20:03:04-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: It"s for the groundhogs, too
Article-I.D.: watmath.3461
Via:  Usenet; 13 Sep 82 4:38-PDT

References: watmath.3459

The Earth a park with industry in space?  All very nice, but get real
Rick.  Lots and lots of industries can be done no better in space than
on earth, and some even need gravity.  There will still be industry on
the surface of the planet for centuries to come, just because of the
distribution problems.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 82 20:27:59-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: Terra Park
Article-I.D.: watmath.3463
Via:  Usenet; 13 Sep 82 4:49-PDT

	Perfectly correct, Brad.  But industries don't need a relative
advantage in space to go there.  All an industry would need is cheap
transportation and cheap communications, so that it isn't inherently too
expensive to manufacture things in space.
	The incentive for industries to go into space will come from
enforcement of property rights here on earth: in particular, my property
rights on the air I breathe and on the public waterways I use.
	Further, as Pournelle has pointed out (in Survival with Style), the
pollution problem is merely another aspect of the energy problem.  Since an L-5
colony, or an SPS, can provide power relatively cheaply modulo the initial
investment, it'd seem to me that space solves that one for the groundhogs, too.
					Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #301    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 301

Today's Topics:
			       L-5 colonies
			Independent space colonies
			    Mining by remotes
		      Space and Recombinant DNA    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 1982 1530-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-OZ>
Subject: L-5 colonies
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: minsky at MIT-OZ

Gee, I hope that people don't think that the L-5 society is
especially concerned with colonies floating out there at the
L-5 stability point.  But I do think that there is nothing
incredibly unreasonable about self-sufficiency, given enough technology
and access to asteroids, or lunar materials.  Things won't begin that
way, to be sure, but given enough energy and material, why not.
It better be part of the plan, anyway, because much as it would be
nice to help the groudhogs, there's no way to guarantee against
total destruction except by halting science.  So far as I can see,
we're almost absolutely certain to invent a human-extinction
plague pretty soon.  The geneticists are simply getting too good too fast
for safety - and I think they're all convincing each other that
the danger is small by pure peer pressure.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 1982 16:38:48-PDT
From: A.exp@Berkeley
To: u:space@mit-mc
Subject: Independent space colonies

It is incorrect to say space colonies can not be independent of earth.
It could be done within 20 years.  If interested, it would be to the
reader's advantage to find the references himself.

For an estimate of the percentage of the GNP that could be supplied by
space industry using extraterrestvial material in this period of time
or about 10 years beyond, see the appropriate NASA documents.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 1982 1918-PDT
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: Mining by remotes
To: space at MIT-MC

It would seem that establishing a base on the moon would be
a likely alternative to trying to run a mining operation
from the Earth with remotes. While a technology to control
robots from Earth with the unavoidable time-delay for
relaying commands is possibly workable-- one based on the
moon itself wouldn't have that problem and a base could have
other uses as well. I would think a lunar base easier to set
up than an orbital station actually, all that nice rock to
work with. How would the finances work out? I.e. How would
the price of a lunar base compare to that of an orbital
station? Militarily, I'd even guess the lunar base to have a
better survivablity factor--that is until both we AND the
Russians have bases and were're worrying about defenses
against a lunar first strike. (sigh, some things will never
change I guess). Would a lunar ground-based laser defense
system have any problems? Could one be built strong enough
to attack/defend Earth-orbital satellites or stations.
Tunneling out the moon for nuclear reactors to power it one
might be able to build a fairly hefty zap?

Just think, our descendants could look up into the sky at
night and wonder what it was like when the moon wasn't
inhabited or fortified.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 1982 1614-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Space and Recombinant DNA    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

If R-DNA has the industrial possibilities that its proponents
(and Wall Street, apparently) seem to believe, then it appears
that quite a bit of work will be done in that field.  It certainly
seems like the best place to do that work is in orbit (a high orbit
or a Lagrange point, preferrably).  I wonder how much shuttle
capacity such an operation would require???  Plus an orbital taxi/tug
to move between LEO and HEO.  Would the savings for bio-hazard
isolation equipment necessary to work on Earth, pay for an orbital
genetics lab??  --Tom

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #302    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 302

Today's Topics:
			   Reactors on the moon
	       Space Manufacturing of Biological Materials
			Re: Shuttle Qualifications
			   John Young's glasses
		      Happy Birthday Robert Goddard!
	      Mining the moon with computer gracphics assist
		       Re: "reply to Marvin Minsky"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 82 12:52:28 EDT
From: dyer at NBS-VMS
Subject: Reactors on the moon

	A moon-based reactor has all kinds of plusses going for it.
You don't have to worry much about the safety features that are
currently plauging the US's public utility reactors -- if there are no
people around to be affected by a leak or meltdown, then who cares?
The moon is an ideal enviroment for containing leaks because of the
lack of atomosphere and prevailing winds to carry the gasses away.

	A lunar reactor could be /very/ minimal compared to
earth-based reactors -- the best shielding might be six or seven miles
worth of horizon, with the core and cooling system installed in a
crater or pit.

	Set up a dozen or so 'throw-away' fast breeders on an
otherwise empty plain.  The reactors would be designed to last only
five to ten years, and would be (comparatively) inexpensive.  Every
once in a while you switch fuel rods and process the plutonium, an
operation that could also take place in an inexpensive lunar-based
plant.  Use the plutonium for mining, for power reactors, or for
shoving asteroids around, a-la Dyson's ORION.  Hopefully not for
bombs.

	After ten years, or a melt-down, you bury the reactor with
rock and moondust and spread radiation warning signs liberally around
the area.  Since the signs will probably stay around as long as the
area stays hot (several million years?), future space-faring nations
will be able to see that the burying-gound is an unhealthy place to
dig.

	Gee, you could even have cheap waste-disposal: just launch
waste cannisters with a mass-driver, so they would intersect the
sun....


-Landon-

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 1982 09:24 PDT
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Space Manufacturing of Biological Materials
To: Space @ MIT-MC

The September 13 issue of Electronic Engineering Times reports the following on
page 29, under the headline "Biological Materials To Be Made Commercially In
Space":

"As a result of the experimental prototype's success on the fourth shuttle
mission, McDonnell Douglas Astronautics says it will commit to the
development of a production biological-materials processing unit."

"The electrophoresis processing unit flown on the fourth shuttle flight
was a joint project between McDonnell Douglas and Ortho
Pharmaceuticals..."

"According to McDonnell... the analysis of the quantities of the samples
is 'extremely good'.  The samples were to make a total of 1182
receptacles.  Over 99 percent of the receptacles were filled to computer
predictions of the experiment."

"Samples which contained a 25 percent concentration of biological material
produced about 400 times more separated material in space than the same
25-percent concentration could in full gravity."

"...it proves that commercially viable quantities of biological materials
can be produced in space."

Aside: E.E.Times' Howard Roth writes a column on government and aerospace
called 'DC Circuit' in which he provides excellent coverage of technology and
political developments relating to space.

/John

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 82 15:34:47-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Shuttle Qualifications
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2461
Via:  Usenet; 15 Sep 82 19:27-PDT

References: sri-unix.3171

>From Raymond Schwarz
	John Young was wearing glasses, although im not sure wether they were
bi-focals. Taking into account that Young is the most experienced veteran of
space travel, NASA let him go anyway. (just an assumption). Also Young was
not piloting the shuttle. It's interesting though, where newer "faces" would be
conserned NASA would probablly be more strict as where "old faces" are concerned. 
		Raymond.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 82 20:42:08-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70
Subject: John Young's glasses
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2463
Via:  Usenet; 15 Sep 82 19:37-PDT

John Young was indeed piloting Columbia on STS-1, glasses and all.
(I specifically saw a mention of him putting them on before landing
the beast.)  The point is, John Young did *not* wear glasses when he
first joined the astronaut corps, many years ago.

There is fundamentally no particularly strong reason why bad vision
should keep one from being an astronaut, assuming of course that it
is correctible to 20-20 via glasses.  The thing is, the supply of
would-be astronauts much exceeds the demand.  The problem is not to
find them but to thin them out.  One easy way to do this is to set
the qualifications higher than is strictly necessary.  The same method
is applied elsewhere as well.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 82 11:40:49-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70
Subject: Happy Birthday Robert Goddard!
Article-I.D.: tekcad.183
Via:  Usenet; 15 Sep 82 18:12-PDT


If you want a good excuse for a party...
Tuesday, October 5, 1982 is the 100th anniversary of the
birthday of Robert Goddard, the first man to launch a liquid 
fuel rocket (in 1926).  We are going to have a party at the
Oregon Museum of Science and Industry at 7 P.M., and locals are
invited.  I've heard rumors that the California M.S.I. and the
Minneapolis L-5 group are planning parties also.
				Keith Lofstrom

uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet:	tekcad!keithl@tek
ARPAnet:tekcad!keithl.tek@udel-relay

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 82 18:14:45-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!nwuxc!otuxa!we13!lime!houti!trc at Ucb-C70
Subject: Mining the moon with computer gracphics assist
Article-I.D.: houti.152
Via:  Usenet; 16 Sep 82 2:18-PDT


Some more thoughts on how remote mining could be aided by computer graphics:

	The major tasks of a mining remote, as I see it, include:

	Initial self set up - after landing (little intelligence needed)
	Set up of auxiliary equipment - E.G. solar power collector to
		power the remote - (may require intelligence)
	Self maintenence, test, and repair - (needs lots of intelligence)
	Prospecting for minerals - (involves moving around, needs intelligence)
	Extraction of minerals - (depending on methods, can be dangerous, 
		needs intelligence)
	Transport of minerals - (can follow a pre-scouted path, some
		intelligence required)
	Processessing of materials - (intelligence required depends on the
		complexity of processing - crunching it and piling it up
		doesnt take much, and might be a reasonable 1st objective)

Remote maintenence and repair can be aided by a model of the remote, that
can be manipulated to generate control to manipulate the real remote.  
Problems, damage, dust, and such can be simulated.

Prospecting will probably involve moving about, collecting samples,
and analysing them.  Camera images will have to be analysed to 
create a model of terrain (lunain?).  Probe readings will have to be
incorporated into the model, and processed to detect potential danger
areas and rich mining areas.

Extraction of minerals may be done by scooping up loose material, drilling,
blasting, or possibly cutting.  Blasting would require a supply of
explosives, which would be soon depleted, and is inately dangerous.
Cutting and drilling are high-energy approaches, and would not appear
suitable, at least for a first attempt.  Thus, collection of already
loose material will probably be the first major means of mining.
A scoop, or perhaps a rotating broom could collect dust and gravel.
Such an approach can be handled by planning a collection path, which
avoids obstacles such as large rocks and pits.  The terrain model
could be segmented into collection zones by the operator, in which a
standard collection method (selected from several), or one specially programmed
by the operator would be applied.  For example, the material might just
be pushed up into a pile.
	Actually, there is one means of mining that is potentially
practical for lunar mining.  An array of mirrors could be used to focus
sunlight into shaded (cooler) areas, then moved away.  Repetitions
of this cycle could be used to break up rocks.  The cycle would
be able to repeat at a faster rate and at greater temperatures
than normal in the lunar environment.  This is similar to the 
techniques used by ancient miners, who would light fires to heat
the rock. It has the advantage that large mirrors should be easy to construct
from light materials, and will not wear out so readily.  The mirrors could
serve multiple purposes, by smelting ore and generating power as well.
	Here, computer graphics could be used to plan target areas,
model or display temperatures, and automate the manipulation of the
mirrors.

	Transporting of materials can be planned by the operator by
tracing a safe and efficient path over the terrain model.  Instructions
to the remote would be automatically generated.  The operator could then 
carefully run the remote over the path several times, using a stop-look-go
sequence for safety.

	Processing of the materials will probably involve smelting them,
and can use the solar mirror approach outlined above.  Rather than send
along a blast furnace, it will probably be most practical to melt the
ore, and let it drain into a container.  It should be possible to 
create some sort of melting surface on the side of a hill.


				Tom Craver
				houti!trc

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 82 15:56:32-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!zeppo!whuxk!houxi!hocsb!hocsd!jis at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: "reply to Marvin Minsky"
Article-I.D.: hocsd.134
Via:  Usenet; 16 Sep 82 2:27-PDT

I absolutely agree with Tom Roberts in so far as it is important to EXTEND
the realm of Science (or at least the methodology of Science) to include
national and international politics. However, it is not at all obvious to me
as to how one can go about and make that happen.
	It seems that if science could be packaged in a religeous packet and
sold, that might work (considering all the absurdities that people will buy
in religeous packets!). Unfortunately, that thought is an anathema, at least
to me, and perhaps it would defeat the basic purpose of the quest.

Jishnu Mukerji
Bell Laboratories 1B-425
Holmdel NJ 07733
hocsd!jis

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #303    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 303

Today's Topics:
	      Mining the moon with computer graphics assist
			 Re: John Young"s glasses
			 Re: Reactors on the Moon
			John Young piloting STS-1
		      Shuttle Qual & Young's Glasses
		    Re: Happy Birthday Robert Goddard!
				Space Walk
		     Re: Reactors on the moon - (nf)
		     Re: Reactors on the moon - (nf)
			     Fission "waste" 
			   Reactors on the moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 September 1982 07:46-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Mining the moon with computer graphics assist
To: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!nwuxc!otuxa!we13!lime!houti!trc at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

You have a bunch of good ideas there. Between the three of us (you me
and Minsky) we should have enough to put together an article for L-5
newsletter.

Re maintenance: If things don't break down often, we can run them
unattended as long as possible, then either send replacement equipment
or send a crew for a brief repair trip. That way we won't need to
maintain personnel for long times on the Moon. Maybe we can even have
the repair crew work remotely from LLO (Low Lunar Orbit). That way we
wouldn't need any lunar liftoff facility, only semi-soft-landing for
equipment and space travel without landing for crew. We'd send a LLO
crew only for tasks where the 2.5 second delay from LEO was intolerable.

Re searching for minerals: Initially we'll need lots of oxygen silicon
and aluminum, and maybe we'll go for titanium also, all of which are
abundant in lunar soil. We won't need to go prospecting, nor need to
break up rocks. We just scoop up all the loose dirt within a mile of
our landing site and we should have plenty. As for hydrogen and
carbon, the two materials we'll need in large quantities which don't
occur in abundance on the moon, we'll probably get them from elsewhere
anyway, from a comet or asteroid that we've dragged into LEO where
remote mining isn't a problem. (One exception, if we find water in
polar regions of moon, we may decide to mine it from there instead of
from a comet, and then we WILL probably need some skill at searching
out the heaviest deposits of water and selectively mining them.)

Re smelting container: How about pile up a bunch of loose debris
(mostly dust with some gravel to give it strength) and form it into a
sort of volcano shape, that is it comes up on all sides but has a big
cavity in the top that reaches nearly back down to ground level. Then
melt stuff into the cavity. After it has cooled, lift the cooled melt
(which is solid) out of the cavity (which is loose debris), and add a
little debris to replace the stuff that stuck to the melt, and melt
some more stuff into the cavity, ...

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 82 17:50:19-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: John Young"s glasses

	Young's glasses were half-moon reading glasses, not bifocals or
"normal" glasses.  Presumably his vision is 20/20 without them.
					Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 1982 09:51 PDT
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Reactors on the Moon
To: Space at MIT-MC
cc: Ciccarelli

On Earth, nuclear reactors are (by some arguments) a cost-effective power
source compared to alternatives.  On the Moon, *no* such advantage exists
when compared to the obvious competitor: sunlight.  Consider the following
criteria:

[Generator site]

Nuclear:  If you build it "dirty" and unshielded (as suggested), its users
must be some distance away, at least outside the crater.

Solar:  No site restrictions.  Power is generated where needed, without
long transmission lines.  Move the power station when you need to; it's
not "hot", large, or heavy (especially with photovoltaics).

[Fuel]

Nuclear:  (a) Launch it from earth, *if* your citizens and the rest of the
world don't object to the possibility of an unexpected "hot" shower if the
launch vehicle fails, or (b) Find it (if it exists), mine it, and set up
and power a separation plant on the moon (not worth considering).

By the way there's the nasty detail of reprocessing breeder output.
Presumably this involves robots or highly-paid humans, not to mention a
plutonium remanufacture facility.  Sounds complex...

Solar:  Spread a thin reflective sheet, or set up your photovoltaics!  No
hot waste to reprocess, either.

[Electrical generator]

Nuclear: (and Solar) could run a turbine (such a solar turbine has been
proposed for an orbiting solar power satellite), but turbogenerators have
to be shipped from Earth until you can make them "up there", and they have
certain economies of scale (lower efficiency when made smaller).

Solar: Photovoltaics would be much easier (than turbines) to make
"locally", since no iron is involved and silicon is plentiful.  They are
usable in ANY size; just connect enough cells in series and/or parallel to
provide the desired voltage and current.  They have NO moving parts,
aren't "hot", and are easily relocated.  There's no downtime or power
reduction during repairs since you can replace modules without shutting
down others in the array.

[Industrial process heat, i.e. for smelting and reduction of rocks]

Nuclear:  Heat can't be used directly without shielding (if you expect to
have humans anywhere nearby...).  This means electrical conversion (lossy)
and reconversion to heat or RF.  Why bother...?

Solar:  Easier than power generation; just aim mirrors at whatever needs
the heat.  Turns on and off instantly; not true for a reactor.


...Lastly, I abhor the "run it till it melts down, then bury it" school of
engineering.  The same goes for the "launch the wastes into the sun"
suggestions.  Why *create* these problems in the first place, when
obviously better paths exist?  I'll be damned if I'd like to be the
22nd-century lunar homesteader who happens to encounter your (oops,
mistakenly unmarked) plutonium waste dump.

/John 

  

------------------------------

Date:  16 September 1982 14:19 edt
From:  York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York)
Subject:  John Young piloting STS-1
To:  Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  Message of 16 September 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson

Well, the way I heard it was that John Young was chosen for STS-1  in
the mid-70's by the Director of NASA at the time, John Young.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 1982 2129-PDT
From: Den Lenahan <DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE>
Subject: Shuttle Qual & Young's Glasses
To: space at MIT-MC
Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940.
Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161

I  suspect  that  Schwarz  & Henry were both close to the truth on the
astronaut vs glasses issue.  I  think,  however,  the  restriction  is
probably  a  throwback to the military requirement that requires 20-20
vision to enter pilot training.  The emphasis is on  the  word  ENTER.
Once in pilot training, and even more so having completed it, a waiver
to permit glasses was an easy thing to come by.

Some  enterprizing lads got into pilot training despite glasses.  Many
entered as navigators (where the  requirement  is  less  than  20-20),
then,  after  serving  a  tour  in  that  capacity,  applied for pilot
training.  (And usually were accepted,  as  they  had  already  proven
their   ability  to  be  trained  and  to  function  in  the  airborne
environment.)  One of my  own  students  was  even  more  clever.   He
entered the Air Force (wearing glasses) in the hospital administration
field, then used his position to get a waiver from  the  Air  Training
Command  surgeon  general.   (Incidentally,  he  was  an excellent jet
jockey.)  But, as Henry surmises about astronauts, the candidates  for
military pilot training are numerous enough that there has been as yet
no need to drop the 20-20 requirement (though, as noted, it is  waived
when  advantageous).  I suspect that, given high enough qualifications
in other areas, NASA probably would consider waiving the 20-20 bit  as
well.

Still, as someone mentioned a few issues ago, isn't  there  anyone  on
this  net  who  has an inroad with NASA and can get us the unblemished
truth?

Dennis

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 82 13:12:16-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday Robert Goddard!

While you're celebrating the birthday of this pioneer, keep in mind that it
is also the 25th anniversary of another pioneer--SPUTNIK, to whom we owe
the gratitude for pushing us into the space age.  Anyone ever think what
would (or more aptly, WOULDN'T ) have happened if that little Vanguard
had gone first?  No Apollo and maybe no Americans in space...

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 82 18:37:21-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Space Walk

Joe Allen and William Lenoir will make a space walk on STS-5, and
NASA announced today that on their helmets will be cameras and
lights so that TV viewers at home can see just what they see.
The five day mission will be the shuttle's first commercial
flight.

Meanwhile, STS-5 crew Vance Brand and Robert Overmyer took
part in a mock countdown and launch this afternoon.  The simulation
was programmed to be aborted after one orbit to test out an
emergency landing at Edwards AFB.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 82 19:27:45-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!grunwald at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Reactors on the moon - (nf)

re: dumping wastes on the moon

  Somehow, some little voice inside my head says that if we dump all of
our nuclear waste so close to home so soon, that in 5000 years, we'll
wish we hadn't. Assuming people are still alive, the moon would have
a much more key position for travel and whatnot. It would seem a shame to
to that to such a nicely situated piece of rock. A better plan would be to
be a little safer about it, and then cleanup and shoot the wastes into
deep space (say at a near by star). Even if it takes a few centuries to
get to the star, it wouldn't matter much in deep space.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 82 21:28:05-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Reactors on the moon - (nf)

However, Luna is a *B*I*G* rock! There is plenty of room for just
about anything you'd like to do. Furthermore, unlike the earth,
one spot is just about as good as any other (no weather, river,
air pressure, etc. worries -- just land roughness, and that can
be solved with a grader or by going down to one of the "seas".)
Luna's radius is Order(3000 km) (plus or minus 75%!), and
tha surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r*r (I think), so
the lunar surface has an area of 4*3*3e3*3e3 = 1e8 or so
square kilometers of more or less usable area (give or take a factor
of 100). Plenty of room.
 

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 1982 0205-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Fission "waste" 
To:   space at MIT-MC  

Foo.  In fifty years the nuclear "waste" will be mined for isotopes
available from no other source, and the only problem with it will
be that there won't be enough for all the applications.  Already
elements like Americium, tritium and radioactive cobalt have
irreplacable industrial and medical functions.   To my mind the
main problem with "waste" is storing it in such a form that we can
get at it when we need it.  (The plutonium, of course, will be
removed much sooner than 50 years, and will provide power in the
outer solar system, and propel Orion-type torchships).
	Solar power on the moon is not that great - its gone
completely for two weeks out of every four, and is at shallow
angles most of the rest of the time.   Give me a nice, compact,
warm, reliable reactor and I'll give you some happy robots.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 82 0:43:39-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Reactors on the moon

Gee, you'd have to be careful not to put all those waste dumps together
on one side of the moon, or else they might reach a critical mass and
explode and drive the moon out of its orbit to wander through the galaxy
and encounter all kinds of aliens and weird things...

Seriously, reactors do have the advantage of generating power (and much
needed heat) during the long lunar night.  I would suppose that both
solar and nuclear sources would have their places on the moon.
Remember that the ALSEP packages used radioisotope generators.

Phil Karn

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #304    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 304

Today's Topics:
			    Space by Michener
	      Fission "waste"  --> solar power only halftime
		     Earthworms don't need light    
		     Earthworms don't need light    
		    A billion billion billion dollars
			   Reactors on the Moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 82 11:23:34-PDT (Wed)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70
Subject: Space by Michener

Book Review - - "Space" by James A. Michener

	Finally, a serious mainstream author writes about space?  Well,
almost.  "Space" reads like a fictionalized version of "The Rocket Team",
revolving around a NASA chair jockey, an astronaut, a second-rate senator,
and a German rocket mechanic, plus spouses.  Standard Michener, with about
40 years of character development, family crises, and politicians doing
their paternalistic thing for all us little folk.  The black sheep in this
one is a fellow who moves from a California UFO institute to mass market
religion.  Michener spends a lot of time on current anti-science trends.
	Flames:  Michener appears to make Stanley Mott, the chair jockey,
his mouthpiece, and some of the things he has Stanley say are disturbing.
He discusses the distinction between engineers and scientists, and later
says engineers don't read "sci-fi".  Oh, yah?
	Page 384 "Some of your best writers sound like real fascists";
Some good writers are conservatives, and there are liberals who can't
tell the difference, but Websters gives a precise definition which excludes
all the science fiction authors I know, but may include extremists of the
Left or the Right.
	Page 535, discussing O'Neill colonies- "All that would be
required ... a billion billion billion dollars";  is Michener numerically
illiterate?  You could get to L-5 by climbing a stack of that many dollar
bills, or launch the whole planet into orbit around itself.
	In the end, our favorite politicians are talking about shutting
down NASA "to conserve resources", and all characters nod wisely.  He
discusses the hardships of breaking up NASA.  
	This is not science fiction, being rooted in the past
and present, and Michener makes statements that no SF author could get
away with.  He is one of the most popular mainstream writers, and is 
known for researching his subjects and developing his characters.
This is how space enthusiasts look to the world, and as a mirror on
ourselves this book is worth reading.  Wait for the remainder table
copy, though.

				Keith Lofstrom

uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet:	tekcad!keithl@tek
ARPAnet:tekcad!keithl.tek@udel-relay

------------------------------

Date: 17 September 1982 07:48-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Fission "waste"  --> solar power only halftime
To: HPM at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

It's not necessary to run our remote-mining-robots around the <lunar> clock.
It's hard to get good lighting at night (ever try to work under a car
at night using artificial light?), so why not use solar energy for
both energy and lighting, and shut down things 2 weeks out of each
month? It's not like humans who will die if they don't get fresh
oxygen at least once every 3 minutes, and thus have to (on the moon)
have their CO2-->O2 devices running even at night. The 2-week rest will
give us time to plan the next 2-week "day" of activities. Later when
we get ourself bootstrapped to have some source other than solar power
we might try running at night if it's cost-effective to provide
artificial light and non-solar electricity.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 1982 1150-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Earthworms don't need light    
To:   rem at MIT-MC, space at MIT-MC  

There are currently a couple of factories in Japan that run unattended
part of the time, usually the night shift.  In those, the lights are
turned off, since the robots don't work by vision anyway.  The easiest
methods for automating most of the dirtmoving, processing, and construction
would use short range radars for terrain and object tracking - or some
other active system - and would probably work better without that huge
radio noise generator in the sky.      Don't sell robotics short, it is
presently vigorously alive, and by the time the transportation is ready,
the automatic machinery for unattended operation 90% of the time will be
too.

------------------------------

Date: 17 September 1982 16:20-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Earthworms don't need light    
To: HPM at S1-A
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Re: Radar or laser ranging for robotics on moon.
Indeed, if you can get automated robotics smart enough to map terrain,
plot optimal routes to avoid danger and collect maximal moon-dirt for
smelting, all in the dark (no visual help from Earth-humans for 2
weeks at a time), fine.
My point about shutting down at (lunar-)night was when using TV
cameras and 2.5-second-delay-human control during initial
minimal-equipment setups for materials-bootstrapping and system
debugging. Later we may use active (radar, laser) ranging to create
3-d models, using that instead of TV pictures, sending back to Earth
not a TV picture but a 3-d image that is displayed using some 3-d
device. The human would still run the remote manipulator manually with
the 2.5 second delay, but the visual feedback would be from the 3-d
image rather than directly from moon-based cameras. Perhaps we'd use
direct TV in the day and active ranging at night. During day we'd do
long range terrain mapping and largescale planning, because daylight
is of constant brightness regardless of distance whereas laser ranging
brightness falls off inverse-square on the return path even if the
laser outpath doesn't diverge. (Both fall off inverse-square for
resolution, although that can be corrected by simple magnification.
Using a large lens to collect more light may compensate for
inverse-square light falloff, using magnification to reduce field of
view to reduce noise from Earthshine. Thus with careful design maybe
laser ranging can be used at night over long distances too.)

I think a human teleoperator with various forms of computer-enhanced
optics for visual feedback will be workable long before true robot
control will be, and then just like on Earth we'll find tasks that the
robot can do well and assign them to the robot, leaving the
diminishing-rest to the human.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 82 12:55:09-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxv!lew at Ucb-C70
Subject: A billion billion billion dollars

A billion billion billion is e+27. If a dollar bill is e-4 meters thick,
e+27 of them would extend e+23 meters. A light-year is 3e+8 meters/sec times
3e+7 secs/year or e+16 meters. A stack of a billion billion billion dollars
would extend e+7 light-years; more than a round trip to the Andromeda
Nebula.

Lew Mammel, Jr. - BTL Indian Hill

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 1982 0201-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Reactors on the Moon
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC

	From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
	Solar:  No site restrictions.  Power is generated where needed...

The fatal flaw of solar, since this is not true.  The sun sets even on
the moon - for 2 weeks at a time - and solar energy is not constantly
available except in very limited places.  Thus you are forced into
having long transmission lines (on the order of the moon's diameter),
sharply restricting your building sites, or establishing some facility
to efficiently store the energy for nighttime uses (which is VERY
difficult).

Jim

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Sep-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #305    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 305

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Re: Reactors on the Moon - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 82 15:44:48-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Re: Reactors on the Moon - (nf)

The observations about the relative advantages of solar over nuclear power
on the moon are persuasive, except for one glitch: the sun shines only
about half the time, and when it does shine you have to "point" your 
collectors at it for maximum advantage (simply spreading a sheet on the
more-or-less horizontal means you wind up with a power uptake that looks
like a sine curve with the negative side clipped to 0).

Indeed, the solar arguments are most persuasive only when the sun shines
almost all the time, e.g. in orbit.  This is the tremendous advantage of
the L5-style space colony: the sun is almost always there to tap, and
keeping the collector aimed at it is fairly easy in freefall.

The major problem with solar power on planetary surfaces remains the lack
of effective energy storage technology.  The need for energy storage 
transcends solar needs, of course: any electric utility would like to be
able to run its generating plant at a constant rate, storing the surplus at
times of low demand and tapping it for peak demand.  Solar power for mining
the moon has the dual problem: a constant demand and a fluctuating power source.

=Ned Horvath=

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #306    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 306

Today's Topics:
			 solar power on the moon.
		      ...when WHAT was inhabited...?
		    Re: ...when WHAT was inhabited...?
			  Why build in space?  
			 solar power on the moon
				  solar
		 Solar power stations at the moon's poles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 82 16:40:01-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.piner at Ucb-C70
Subject: solar power on the moon.

There has been some debate on solar power going on, and I
would like to add my two cents worth. There are several methods
of getting useful energy from sun light on the moon. I 
will discuss only two.
1) Solar cells.
  These cells produce electrical power directly when exposed to
light. Very nice, but there are problems. Well, on the moon
those problems are much easier to overcome. First, directing
the cells towards the sun. The sun moves much more slowly 
across the "sky" than on earth. The mass of the cells is the
same, but the weight is much less. So their support system
can be built much lighter than would be required on earth.
Hence, incredibly small motors can do the task. Indeed,
motors may not be needed at all. Since there is no atmosphere
very large temperature gradients are possible due to the
solar radiation. Mechanical systems using bimetal strips
can be designed to point the cells at any source of radiant
heat. Thus no energy is used and the alignment is automatic.
A side note, some cars use bimetal strips on the engines.
On my car, a bimetal strip is linked to the choke and
mounted on the manifold. When the manifold gets hot, the
strip changes shape and pulls the choke off. Such systems
are simple, cheap, and require no logic (other than that
used by the designer). Furthermore, since there is no
atmosphere, you get the full power of the sun as soon
as it comes over the horizon. On earth, the best you can
do is about 25 percent and that is only at noon. The
other problem is storage. I did some simple calculations
and found that the moon has a circumference of 6800 miles.
If we are talking about putting a lot of people on the
moon, say 100 million or so, one could justify building
a superconducting power line around the moon. Bury the
cables deep, and they could be kept cold for a fraction
of the cost required on earth, and you only lose power
during elcipses. Such a project is a large one, but
no bigger than current earth bound projects such as
the Siberian pipe line. This brings me to my second
proposal.
2) Thermoelectric power.
The temperature difference from one side of the moon to
the other is huge. If you build a thermalcouple around
it's circumference electrical power could be generated
directly on a continuous basis. Such a system is
incredibly simple. A lot of wire, and not much else.
Such systems can be used on a local basis too, one
side in light, the other side in shade. But then you
only have power during light. An only for a fixed
system. In any case, if we are talking about a large
number of peole on the moon, then solar power is
the way to go. The first colony however will probably
have to depend on nuclear power, because you have to
start somewhere, and nuclear power plants have fairly
high energy densities, in other words, if you have to
ship fuel to the moon, nuclear is the cheapest. If you
want to generate power from what the moon has to offer,
solar is the best bet. 

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 82 14:22:15-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxi!ihps3!ihnss!knudsen at Ucb-C70
Subject: ...when WHAT was inhabited...?

Concerning lunar installations of lasers capable of zapping Earth,
as well as plagues & nucler war, maybe the future will be:

Inhabitants of Moon and/or L5 colonies reminiscing about the good old
days when that big blue & white cloudy planet was inhabited.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 82 15:11:21-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!houxi!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: ...when WHAT was inhabited...?

No one, in my opinion, has ever shown any justification--survival,
economics, ecological, or even FUN--for the enormous expense and 
doubtful possibility of building anything at Lagrangian points.
To date, I've read cute little stories postulating an elitist
population that evolves an independent society as follows:
(1) trillions are spent by the working taxpayers of Earth, elite and all;
(2) after the New Heaven is established, Old Earth asks for taxes or
    tribute or whatever;
(3) the indignant Fivers revolt & destroy O.E. with asteroids, mass drivers,
    microwaves, etc.
(4) Heaven exists for the elite, all tucked away in their big tin can in
    the middle of nowhere.

(5) And I always ask, lunatic that I am--if the technology and $ exist
    to build big floating tin cans, why not use those resources to
    build at the bottom of the Moon's gravity well--there's a lot more
    *stuff* laying around, and once you're there, it's nearly free.

(6) Those of us who are settled on the Libertarian State of Luna will
    be charging a stiff price for our planet; 

(7) Free space Ain't!

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 1982 1225-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Why build in space?  
To:   space at MIT-MC  

The main reason for space as opposed to planetary residence, as I
see it, is that there is a lot more space than planetary surface,
and its condition is more predictable.  The moon can support maybe
the equivalent of a billion people - but that same material
dispersed into free orbiting colonies can support maybe a thousand
times as many.  Eventually the sun is surrounded by an obscuring
cloud of materials-efficient orbiting habitats, a la Dyson, instead
of a paltry handful of profligately materials-wasteful mudballs.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 1982 1825-EDT
From: Margot Flowers <Flowers at YALE>
to:       space at MIT-MC
subject:  solar power on the moon

     From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
     The sun sets even on the moon - for 2 weeks at a time - and solar
     energy is not constantly available except in very limited places.
     Thus you are forced into having long transmission lines (on the order
     of the moon's diameter), sharply restricting your building sites, ...

If solar energy sufficient for the needs of the dark half could be
generated at the poles (which would always recieve sunlight that
is not greatly diminshed by atmosphere as it is on the earth), then
the farthest transmission lines would have to reach would be to the
moon's equator, at most "only" one quarter the diameter of the moon
(still a somewhat long distance).

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 1982 2159-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-OZ>
Subject: solar
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
Reply-To: MINSKY at MIT-OZ

Energy storage isn't important on the moon, if you accept HPM's
why work at night argument.  It is, on Earth, because of clouds.
Also, on earth, you can't avoid the dimming of light off-peak, because
the atmosphere attenuates at low angles.  On moon, simple mirrors
can do it.  They don't even have to move

several fixed mirrors can get close to constant illumination.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 82 0:06:44-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Solar power stations at the moon's poles

This was mentioned a couple of months ago.  They won't work as intended,
because the moon's axis is inclined to the plane of its orbit by 6.5
degrees and its mean orbital inclination to the ecliptic is a little
over 5 degrees.  Hence, the moon's poles experience the same kind of
seasonal day and night as do the earth's poles and cannot be
used as sites for continuous solar power.  However, the moon's "arctic"
and "antarctic" circles are much smaller than the earth's because of the
lesser tilt of the rotational axis.

The only place near the earth that is suitable for continuous 24-hour
solar illumination (that I can think of) is a polar sun-synchronous
orbit where the orbit plane coincides with the terminator and the
altitude is enough such that seasonal movements of the earth's shadow
don't intersect the orbit.

Phil Karn

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #307    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 307

Today's Topics:
				Neat book
	 September OASIS meeting: "Is There Space in Our Future?"
		  power storage/distribution on the moon
			 solar power on the moon.
	   ...when WHAT was inhabited...? --> Better on Luna??
			 solar power on the moon
			    Power on the Moon
		    Re: ...when WHAT was inhabited...?
			      Shuttle Update
		     Re: Reactors on the moon - (nf)
		  Re: a billion billion billion dollars
			   STS-9 Crew Announced
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 1982 1052-EDT
From: J. Noel Chiappa <JNC at MIT-XX>
Subject: Neat book
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: JNC at MIT-XX

	Got this from a friend, so I thought I'd pass it on to y'all:

	What I really wanted to mention was that, passing by WordsWorth
in Harvard Square the other night, I saw and purchased a book you may
be interested in and not yet know about.  It is entitled "The Space
Shuttle Operator's Manual."  While the writing is not on a very high
technical level, it's approximately 150 pages give much interesting
information on living, working and emergency conditions as well as
liftoff, orbital and re-entry procedures.  Also included in the
appendices are many structural drawings and 3 page foldouts depicting
the flight deck consoles.  Seemed worth the $9.41 price.

------------------------------

Date: 20-Sep-82 12:32:05 PDT (Monday)
From: Hamilton.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: September OASIS meeting: "Is There Space in Our Future?"
To: Space @ MC
cc: Hamilton
Reply-To: Hamilton.es @ PARC-MAXC

LOS ANGELES SPACEFANZ:

Will future space activities be the province of unmanned,
superbly-engineered robots, or will man take an increasingly active role
in space exploration and development?  The September general meeting of
OASIS, the Southern California Chapter of the L-5 Society, will feature a
debate between Dr. Thomas A. Heppenheimer (author of "Colonies in Space")
and Dr. Brian O'Leary (ex-astronaut and author of "The Fertile Stars" on
the future of man in space.

TIME:  this Saturday 25 September 7 pm

PLACE:  The Aerospace Corp, El Segundo (take 405 to El Segundo Blvd. West.
Enter through lobby of building A1, the first building on the left after
you cross Aviation Blvd.)

Free admission; all are welcome.

--Bruce

------------------------------

Date: 20 September 1982  14:02-PDT (Monday)
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: power storage/distribution on the moon
To: space at mc
cc: King at KESTREL

To transmit electrical power around the moon or store it with low losses:

	1) erect towers 200m high, 40 km apart.  You'll need about 320
of 'em.  Line of sight transmssion can be established between adjacent
towers.  The spacing has to be modified slightly to take advantage of
mountains and to go over them.

	2) Atop each tower, place a magnet capable of bending a beam
of relativistic electrons and focussing them.

	we thus establish a 320-agonal path for electrons.  This path
makes a circuit around the moon, approaching the surface at many
points.

	3) Power can be added to or drawn from the beam at any point
by a mechanism similar to a travelling wave tube or a linear
accelerator.  Small amounts of power might also have to be bled on
each tower for internal use, such as keeping the magnet cold if its
superconducting rather than permanent.

	4) I suggest posting a few warning signs.  This beam may be
hazardous to your health where it nears the surface.  (but if a magnet
goes "out" the beam won't go all that far and certainly can't reach
the Earth through its intense magnetic field.  I might suggest a
Tungsteon plate on each tower to protect against this.)

						Dick

------------------------------

Date: 20 September 1982 19:14-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: solar power on the moon.
To: decvax!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.piner at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Regarding bimetal strips in chokes in cars: Those have been a source
of malfunction in every car I've ever had. Because they have no
smarts, when they jam they aren't aware of it, take no corrective
action, report nothing to the operator (driver). For the moon I hope
we use something with some smarts. I propose an omni-direction solar
array (inefficient but gives some power whenever the sun is in the
sky) for bootstrapping the computer logic; alternately a
radioactive-decay heat source. Then use that energy to run a smart
aiming device for the main batch of solar cells or other solar energy
collection/conversion devices. Then use that energy to run the mining
experiment station.

------------------------------

Date: 20 September 1982 19:24-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  ...when WHAT was inhabited...? --> Better on Luna??
To: npois!houxi!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I'll give you one good reason for building in space instead of on Luna.
It's damned hard to build large massive things in gravity.
Things keep falling. Things have to be supported against falling.
But things break and structures collapse and a cascade of disaster
happens with one thing knocking another apart and something else
collapses and heavy objects crush people to death.
Supporting against gravity, girders have to be strong to support the
basic stuff that just be held up, but those girders are massive
themselves and that merely compounds the problem. There's some limit
beyond which it's virtually impossible to build anything bigger.
Witness the limit that even pieces of rock can't rise more than about
29 thousand feet above sea level; they get crushed under their own
weight. In space we can build things arbitrarily large providing we're
sufficiently far from tidal forces of planets (including moons etc.).
At L-5 (or in LEO for that matter) we can build much larger than on
Moon, and much more cheaply materialwise.
Even though many elements are available on the moon, some aren't. But
in deepspace (L-5 or whereever) we can bring asteroids of desired
composition nearby and raid them for materials. On Luna we'd have to
somehow land those asteroids gently enough to avoid moonquaking the
processing plant to shambles.
Sure there'll be uses for moon bases, but the longrun picture is
surely deepspace for a vast majority of large manufacturing and
energy-producing facilities, and probably habitat as well.

------------------------------

Date: 20 September 1982 19:42-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: solar power on the moon
To: Flowers at YALE
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: 18 Sep 1982 1825-EDT
    From: Margot Flowers <Flowers at YALE>
    If solar energy sufficient for the needs of the dark half could be
    generated at the poles (which would always recieve sunlight that
    is not greatly diminshed by atmosphere as it is on the earth), 
That's wrong. The Moon tips north and south with respect to the sun,
just like the Earth does (Summer and Winter), although not the same
amount. The effect is similar. Half the year the north pole is in
darkness and half the year the south pole is in darkness, with some
grazing lighting during the boundary region (Spring and Autumn
equinox). A high tower might get light a little more than half the
time at either pole, whereas a ground-based station might get light a
little less than half the time. Two high towers are need for coverage
all the time (except during eclipses).
								   then
    the farthest transmission lines would have to reach would be to the
    moon's equator, at most "only" one quarter the diameter of the moon
    (still a somewhat long distance).
Your geometrical terminology is lacking. The distance around the moon
is called the "circumference", not the "diameter". You're off by a
factor of PI (3.1415926535...).
But because each pole gets light only half the time, there's an
additional factor of two, because worst case is supplying the south
pole from the north pole during southern Winter and vice versa during
northern Winter. Thus you're really off by a factor of 6.

I propose three stations on the equator separated by one third of the
circumference. That way each supplies energy for a little less than
half, and their less-than-halves overlap allowing smooth transition
from one to the next, avoiding power glitches as current in cables is
reversed gradually between the two sites. Except for the master trunk
that girdles the Moon at the equator, worst case is quarter circumference.
(That proposal is in the context of centralized production. Acutally I
prefer distributed production whereby each station has its own solar
energy, with computer making it track the sun, and decreasing level of
activity each night to conserve limited energy storage. At least in
the forseeable future, say 50 years.)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 1982 9:19-PDT
From: dietz.usc-cse at UDel-Relay
Subject: Power on the Moon
To: space at Mit-Mc
Origin: usc-cse
Via:  USC-CSE; 20 Sep 82 20:46-EDT

In "Colonies in Space" Heppenheimer (sp?) proposes putting two nuclear
reactors on the moon.  The first is the provide power for the first
team, which builds a mass driver.  The second and larger plant is to
power the first mass driver.  After you get a mass driver working and
are building solar powersats the team builds a rectenna to receive
power from a satellite at the L1 point (between the moon and earth).
The reactors are shielded by putting them in craters and covering them
with several meters of lunar soil.

One big engineering problem with reactors on the moon is waste heat.
On Earth you can heat up fluids (air, water) but in space the only way
to dispose of heat is to radiate it away.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 1982 22:29:33-PDT
From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg])
To: npois!houxi!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at berkeley
Subject: Re: ...when WHAT was inhabited...?
Cc: space at MIT-MC

It is likely that L4 and L5 are chock-full of stardust, just begging
to be build into useful factories, powersats, resort hotels, etc.
Various people have looked for the dust and so far have found nothing,
but I am still confident that it is there.  We could find out exactly
how much dust is there for a paltry $20M or so - one of those upper
stages used with the shuttle to get to geosynch should be able to get
to L4/5 and back, considering that its payload could be as simple
as a sheet of plastic for the dust to embed itself into.

We REALLY should find out.  Does anyone know of any plans for missions
like this, or for more extensive telescopic searches?
---
Jef

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 82 15:37:01-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: npois!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Update
Article-I.D.: alice.924
Via:  Usenet; 20 Sep 82 23:46-PDT

The Columbia sailed through its mock mission yesterday with flying
colors, making a scheduled simulated emergency abort (wow, all these
adjectives!) landing at EAFB.  Today, NASA said that plans to move
the shuttle to pad 39A on Tuesday, the 21st, were going right on
schedule, and the launch is still scheduled for 11 November.

On Monday, NASA will pick the mission specialists for STS-9,
scheduled to blast off on 20 September, 1983.  STS-3 will see
the first non-astronauts on the shuttle and also the first
foreigners.  Its payload will be Spacelab.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 82 11:34:51-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!barnes at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Reactors on the moon - (nf)

    ***** uiucdcs:net.space / mcdaniel /  9:09 pm  Sep 16, 1982

    However, Luna is a *B*I*G* rock! There is plenty of room for just
    about anything you'd like to do. Furthermore, unlike the earth,
    one spot is just about as good as any other (no weather, river,
    air pressure, etc. worries -- just land roughness, and that can
    be solved with a grader or by going down to one of the "seas".)
    Luna's radius is Order(3000 km) (plus or minus 75%!), and
    tha surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r*r (I think), so
    the lunar surface has an area of 4*3*3e3*3e3 = 1e8 or so
    square kilometers of more or less usable area (give or take a factor
    of 100). Plenty of room.

	I seem to recall from my history classes that back a few
decades we thought the oceans and remote sections of our planet
were big enough to take it.  The World has a slightly different
opinion now.
	In 5000 years I don't think that hunk of rock will mean
anything to us execpt as a museum.  Think of what was happening
on this planet 5000 years ago and if we survive another 5000 years,
we won't be worrying about little star systems like this one.

				uiucdcs!barnes

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 82 19:07:29-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: a billion billion billion dollars
From:	Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University

Well, in English this phrase is ambiguous.  It isn't at all clear what it
means;  if the "billion" is British usage than each of the "billions" have
a value 1000 times the American value, and if it is intended to mean
something like 3 x 1 billion or 1000 x 1000 x 1 billion it might be reasonable
in some dialect (not in any standard English I know).  I don't know what he
was trying to convey by the phrase but the precise meaning is obviously not
important - he's trying to express an impossibly large number.

Whether this is a literate way of doing so is another question.

			Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 82 19:41:12-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: STS-9 Crew Announced

The crew for the seven-day flight of STS-9, now scheduled to launch
on 30 September, 1983, was announced today by NASA.  The commander
will be John Young, making his second shuttle flight; pilot will
be Brewster Shaw; mission specialists will be Owen Garriott and
Robert Parker.  Also among the crew will be an American scientist
Byron K. Lichtenberg and West German scientist Ulf Merbold; they
will operate Space Lab 1, also due to fly with STS-9.  It will be
the first time that a foreigner has flown on an American spacecraft.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Sep-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #308    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 308

Today's Topics:
			    Power on the Moon
		       Satellite Search-and-Rescue
			  Shuttle Rollout Today
				 Billions
			  Lunar Power Generation
			    re where to build
			       Luna vs L-5
			 solar power on the moon
			 solar power on the moon
			    re where to build
		 Relativistic Electron Power Transmission
		      Uosat-Oscar-9 Salvage Success!
			      Shuttle at Pad
			  More on UOSAT Salvage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 September 1982 07:17-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Power on the Moon
To: dietz.usc-cse at UDEL-RELAY
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

On the moon there'd be vast areas of uninhabited terrain relatively
near to the nuclear reactor. For example, the reactor could be put
south of the work area instead of in its center, and then the area
south of the reactor could be uninhabited.
The solution to cooling the reactor would then be to pipe liquid
sodium thru miles of tubing along the surface. During the day the
sodium wouldn't be much effective, but at night it'd be great. You'd
thus need a large tank of reserve sodium to act as a heat storage
device, absorbing excess heat during the day and then distributing it
to the radiator at night. (I picked sodium because it's been used on
Earth and if we sent a reactor using sodium as the primary coolant we
could avoid the need for a heat exchanger to transfer heat to a
secondary coolant (water) like we do on Earth.)
Would the idea work?

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 82 15:06:44-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Ucb-C70
Subject: Satellite Search-and-Rescue

   According to today's morning edition of the Toronto Star,
a satellite-based search-and-rescue system was used (yesterday?)
to locate a small aircraft that had crashed in the mountains of
British Columbia. The satellite that detected the signal from
the aircraft's Emergency Transmitter Locator (ETL) was a Soviet one,
Cospas 1, launched last July 30. The signal from the satellite
was received at a Canadian Forces search-and-rescue station
at Shirley Bay, outside Ottawa, the day after the crash.
Cospas 1 is in a low (960 km) orbit, covering Canada once every
12 hours, if I decode the news-reporter's phraseology correctly.
   Conincidentally, I attended a lecture by an employee
of SPAR aerospace (of Canadarm fame) last week--he described this
satellite system, which I beleive his company had a hand in,
and mentioned that while no rescues had yet been attributed to
the satellites, they expected them to prove themselves in the
near future! The system, I beleive, is comprised of three satellites,
one Canadian, one French and one Soviet, in high-inclination orbits.
The search-and-rescue equipment flies as a secondary payload on these
satellites. It works by receiving the low-power (1 watt) ETL
signals from downed aircraft, and either relaying them to ground
stations, or finding the frequency shift in the signal due to the
relative velocity of the satellite with respect to the ETL,
which is then transmitted to the ground stations. In any case,
the Doppler-shift of the ETL is found, and is decoded on the ground
to determine the position of the downed aircraft. In this case,
the satellite data located the aircraft to "within a few kilometres"
of its actual position. Not bad!
(Oh yes. Three people were rescued: G. Van Amelsvoort, J.Zaigleheim,
and G. Heemskerk, all from the Toronto area. An air-based search
for th aircraft the previous night had failed. The satellite's
success was attributed by the Armed Forces to its being high
enough to "avoid natural interference".)
-Kieran A. Carroll

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 82 7:21:33-EDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Rollout Today

The Columbia will be (and may be already) rolled out to pad 39A
today.  The eight hour trip was scheduled to have begun at 0515
EDT.  Once there, final tests will be done before its 11 November
launch.  On 18 October, two communications satellites will be
loaded aboard it.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 1982 1209-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-OZ>
Subject: Billions
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: minsky at MIT-OZ

Some child was tellig me about something large and said
"it is a hundred billion thousand million billion billion"
miles long.  I said "it would be larger if you say
"a billion billion billion billion billion billion".
The child said "it sounds larger the first way".

More variety, I suppose.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 1982 at 1219-CDT
From: kjm at utexas-11
Subject: Lunar Power Generation
To: space at mit-mc


  The point has been made that relatively low power motors could be
used to point a solar collector on the moon. Why not build a tower
of sufficient height to "see around" the axial inclination at one
of the lunar poles and place the collector on top of it? (The collector
would complete one revolution per lunar month.)

		Ken Montgomery

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 1982 13:56:40-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: rem at mit-mc
Subject: re where to build
Cc: space at mit-mc

   Many authors have protrayed people badly crushed during space construction
because they didn't allow for the fact that what they were handling had the
same momentum as it had on the ground. Presumably this would be less of a
problem with girders assembled in space out of flat stock (among other things,
they wouldn't have to resist being crushed during launch), but would you
really be able to build lightweight structures if you want to spin them for
artificial gravity? Most of the descriptions of space colonies I've seen talk
about spinning to produce [artificial gravity] greater than lunar-surface.
Seems like you'd have to stress them two ways, since they'd have to support
whatever G you select and resist the forces necessary to start up and balance
the spin.
   Also, I don't think your 29,000-foot figure is a limit; that's simply as
far ahead of erosion as the collision of the Indian and Asian plates has pushed
the Himalayas. On Mars, still with twice the lunar G, a cinder cone (Olympus
Mons) has gotten up to 80,000 feet.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 1982 1259-CDT
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Luna vs L-5
To: space at MIT-MC

One does not have to build huge structures ANYWHERE to support
colonies.  We poor slobs in 1G have built some HUGE buildings which
serve us perfectly well, so we don't have to enclose half of near-Terran
space to live there.

        And as for Terran mountains being only 'able' to be
a dozen or so miles high - crap!  While mountains do sink under their
weight eventually, they get worn down by erosion MUCH faster.  The only
reason there isn't 20 mile high mountiains is because tetonic forces
haven't in recent history (last 100 million years), pushed anything that
high.  

        We should put sloar power stations in orbit somewhere, but we
should not go ONLY to space or ONLY to planetary surfaces.  I doubt that
there is any material at the L-? points to build anything out of -- we
will need to get metals for SOME rock somewhere, and Luna is the
closest.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 1982 1527-EDT
From: Margot Flowers <Flowers at YALE>
subject:  solar power on the moon
to:  Webb at CMU-20C, REM at MIT-MC
cc:  space at MIT-MC

Several people have pointed out that the poles of the moon do not
receive sunlight continually.  (I knew there was a reason I said
"If ...".)

Though my suggestion was faulty, the point of my comment was really
more general:  that appropriate spacings of solar collectors on the
moon might make solar power be not so unfeasible asit might seem
at first thought -- something that various other messages have
recently suggested too.

     Date: 20 September 1982 19:42-EDT
     From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
     Your geometrical terminology is lacking. The distance around the moon
     is called the "circumference", not the "diameter".

I did know that (I think it is clear from the content of my message
that I meant "one quarter of the circumference", otherwise more people
would have commented on it), but thanks for pointing out my
inadvertent "write-o".

          - Margot Flowers

------------------------------

Date: 21 September 1982 19:58-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: solar power on the moon
To: Flowers at YALE
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I think it's quite clear that in the long run we want to have habitat
and industry etc. in space, probably a la Dyson sphere around each
star we homestead. It's not so clear what method we want for powering
planet-based habitat and industry, whether simply tap off the Dyson
power grid, or have local solar energy with local storage, or have a
ring of energy girdling the planet to avoid need for local storage, or
have local nuclear fission power, or if we solve the problem local
nuclear fusion power. I think it's too early to decide on one or the
other, although we ought to keep all those possibilities in mind
towards the end of the next 50 years as we approach the time they will
be implemented. (My guess, none of the above, by 50 years from now
we'll have a new and better idea.)

My suggestions how to supply energy to lunar mining stations deals
with the bootstrapping period, from when we first establish an
experimental mining station on the Moon until we have enough industry
on the Moon to begin to consider linking all of it together into large
power grids or mass-tossing networks of manufacturing stations
(imagine using a mass-driver to toss pellets of pure titanium from the
titanium-extracting station to a place where it's needed to make
titanium-iron alloy, this toss perhaps being between points hundreds
of miles apart!). Our urgent problem now is that (1) the money-holders
don't think space is worth money because they think it's too expensive
or impossible or doesn't reap enough rewards, (2) the scientists
haven't really worked out all the possibilities and created a proposal
for action (some starts have been made here with Pournelle's space
policy proposal), (3) because of 1 and 2 hardly anything is moving
along and thus we simply aren't bootstrapping ourselves into space.

Currently I stick mostly to things that will be useful for getting
started.  In addition to the currently-planned shuttle activities of
chemical-manufacture experiments and large-space-telescope, these
include: development of SEPS (Solar Electric Propulsion System =
solar-powered ion rocket) and a general space-tug capability,
development of a full-scale mass-driver, launching of a
permanently-staffed LEO (Low Earth Orbit) station, surveying L-4 and
L-5 for debris, surveying the polar regions of the Moon for water ice,
surveying near-Earth asteroids and comets for minerals, experimenting
with remote-control mechanisms and robotics to determine whether they
are feasible, and actual starting of experimental robot mining on moon
(in polar regions if water is found there, else in equatorial
regions). It is in this context that I debate whether robotics is
sufficiently developed for mining, whether solar or nuclear energy
should be used, ... and dismiss power grids on the moon as being too
far in the future but still worth discussing briefly to aid our
long-range perspective.

------------------------------

Date: 21 September 1982 20:15-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: re where to build
To: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

When planning for the stresses on a structure while fully built, you
have only one configuration to check, the final structure. When you
build something that will be spun up to make artificial gravity, you
have two, during spin-up, and in stable spinning. But when you build
something on Earth or in any other gravity field, you have all those
intermediate states during construction. Most collapsing structures
that kill people occur either during construction or during
Earthquakes. Hardly any people are killed by structures that just
colapse suddenly during normal operation.

Thus construction in space will be much safer than construction on
Earth, assuming nobody is dumb enough to spin up a structure while
it's still being built.
Actual operation will be about the same as on Earth, which is
adequate.  (You don't have to plan for Earthquakes or hurricanes or
tornadoes or blizzards or heavy rain causing ground liquification in
space either, so in that respect space habitat will be safer than on
Earth.)
In space your only unpredictable hazards are collisions with objects
such as meteors spacecraft and mis-tossed industrial materials.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 1982 13:50-PDT
From: dietz.usc-cse at UDel-Relay
Subject: Relativistic Electron Power Transmission
To: king at Kestrel, space at Mit-Mc

  Electrons are a bad idea because of energy losses from synchrotron
radiation.  If the bending magnets are large enough this isn't a
problem (how large?).  I also worry about magnetic fields in the solar
wind and the lunar soil deflecting the beam.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 82 13:14:10-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: Uosat-Oscar-9 Salvage Success!

I just received a phone call from Vern Riportella, WA2LQQ, AMSAT Executive
VP.  Rip informs me that last night, the SRI team using the 150 foot
antenna has successfully commanded Uosat-Oscar-9, turning off the beacons
which have jammed the command receivers for quite a few months now.

The problem was that no interlock circuit had been provided in the
spacecraft to prevent the inadvertent turning on of both the 2 meter and
the 70 cm beacons, which desensitized the command receivers also on 2
and 70 cm.  Naturally, a mistake was made, and somehow both beacons had been
commanded on.  The SRI dish, plus a kilowatt of transmitter power, was
finally able to override the strong local signal in the command receiver
(probably on 2 meters, but that hasn't been confirmed) and turn off a beacon
to allow commanding on that band.

Initial telemetry reports after the two-meter beacon was turned back on
and telemetry encoding enabled indicate that the spacecraft is still in
excellent health.

Uosat-Oscar-9 may be received with a conventional amateur 2-meter
receiver on 145.825 mhz FM.  If you have a Bell 202 (NOT 212) modem and
a conventional terminal, you can decode its telemetry.  Just connect the
terminal to the modem and set the terminal to 1200 or 300 baud,
depending on the current telemetry speed.

Phil Karn, KA9Q/2

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 82 15:26:55-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle at Pad

The Columbia reached pad 39A at 1000 EDT today, right on schedule.
The end to the rollout procedure was not expected until 1330 EDT
though, when the shuttle is actually secured to the pad.  Then,
three days of gas, electrical, and other connections will ensue.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 82 21:48:44-PDT (Tue)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70
Subject: More on UOSAT Salvage
Article-I.D.: eagle.526
Via:  Usenet; 22 Sep 82 2:36-PDT

Some more details on the successful salvage effort at SRI which regained
control over the Uosat-Oscar-9 spacecraft, which had been unable to
respond to commands since April 1982:

The SRI team commanded the beacons off at 22:35 UTC on 20 September,
using an enormous amount of effective radiated power on the 70 cm command
frequency.  The earlier problems with the SRI effort appear to have been
due to ground command encoder problems and outdated orbit element sets that
gave inaccurate antenna pointing instructions (the SRI dish has a 3 db
beamwidth of less than a degree at 70cm).  The command encoder glitches
were fixed several days ago.  On the first pass after receiving a new
set of orbit elements, the SRI team succeeded.

As I mentioned in my previous article, the spacecraft appears to still be in
good health, and the activities in progress before April (extending the
gravity gradient boom, checking out the HF beacon transmitters, TV
camera, computers, etc) can continue.

Phil Karn, KA9Q

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #309    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 309

Today's Topics:
			  Re: re where to build
			    Power on the Moon
		 Relativistic Electron Power Transmission
		Structures for spinning and Dyson spheres
	      Simulation of space operations with computers
		      Note on material at L4 and L5
			    Power on the Moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 1982 11:35:29-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
To: REM at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: re where to build
Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

In response to your message of Tue Sep 21 22:14:30 1982:

   Actually, most of the recent collapses of buildings (at least in this
country) have been after the building was complete, when it turned out that
someone had miscalculated the load the system could naturally come under---
witness the walkway falling at the Hyatt Regency Kansas City, the various
collapses of arena and shopping mall roofs. Fatalities in the latter have
been minimal, but the interesting thing is that it happened because nobody
calculated that water on the roof would cause it to sink in the middle,
preventing drainage and collecting more water until the roof fell in.
   The worst recent accident during construction involved the collapse of a
scaffolding around a cooling tower being cast (the tower itself stayed up).
I'd say that most accidents during construction involve the collapse of
auxiliaries rather than the primary structure giving way; I don't think
your description of intermediate, less-stable states is accurate (with the
possible exception of wild cards like the Sears tower in Chicago, where
diagonal braces many stories high couldn't be added until the stories were
mostly finished).
   I expect that accidents on the moon and in space would be about equally
devastating, although in different ways (consider the problem of getting
something heavy off of a body under lunar gravity against that of zero-gee
surgery) but there's enough junk up already to represent a significant
hazard at least to LEO space construction.

------------------------------

Date: 22 September 1982  11:11-PDT (Wednesday)
From: KING at KESTREL
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>, SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: Power on the Moon

	The purpose of the primary coolant in the reacter is to get
heat from the insides of the reacter to the thermal power generation
process.  To avoid heat exchangers, it is therefore necessary for the
primary coolant to boil.
	What you're looking for is the boiling water reacter - not the
liquid metal reacter.  The latter is primarily interesting because
liquid metal doesn't moderate, a property desirable for a breeder
reacter.  I doubt we'll be using breeders on the moon, ever.  Before 
things get well enough developed for a breeder to be practical, we'll
be thinking solar with circumlunar transmission lines.
	Some of the light-weight structures proposed for cooling the
SPS will work on the moon, especially if there is a tall mountain to
spray the stuff off of.  We would want that, anyway, to have shading
of the radiators.
	You bring up an interesting point.  Why not use sunlight
during the day (when your cooling system might not work) and nuclear
during the night (when your solar won't work).  I wouldn't be
surprised if the weight saved by using a less heat-resistant cooling
system would "pay for" a solar power system.


					Dick

------------------------------

Date: 22 September 1982  11:17-PDT (Wednesday)
From: KING at KESTREL
To: dietz.usc-cse at UDel-Relay
Cc: space at Mit-Mc
Subject: Relativistic Electron Power Transmission

	The magnets don't have to be that large.  Ames has worked it
out for the much more difficult case of a beam shuttling back and
forth between 2 satellites in Earth orbit.
	The magnetic field isn't a problem.  It merely has to be
allowed for.

						Dick

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 1982 1228-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: Structures for spinning and Dyson spheres
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]22-Sep-82 12:28:16.WMARTIN>

I would think that generating artificial gravity via spinning
structures would create tension-type forces instead of
compression; thus you can use light stuff held together with
cable or similar material with a high strength-to-mass ratio.
You need the outer surface to be strong enough to support the
"weight" of the things sitting on it, but that surface is
suspended from the hub.  It would be like a sling holding rocks.
Hmmm, no spike-heeled shoes allowed...

What are the standard references for information on Dyson
spheres?  Has anyone done any "real" analysis on them and their
implementation or effects, or did Dyson just describe them once
as a neat idea and that's as far as it went?  Anyway, I was
wondering what the effect of a Dyson sphere is on the star it
surrounds.  Since this star becomes a closed instead of open
system, with all the photons and radiation returned to the star
or trapped at the inner sphere surface, does it change the life
cycle of the star?  Will the star use up its resources slower or
faster or is there no effect?

I would think that a culture that could build a Dyson sphere
could perform maintenance on the star inside, maybe by sending
mini black holes through it to clean out higher-atomic-number
elements and feeding in more hydrogen or helium to keep it
youthful.  If I invested the cost of a Dyson sphere, I wouldn't
want it to become unusable in only one stellar lifetime, after
all!

What about navigation?  How do you find a Dyson-sphered star
system? Or maybe they don't want to be found...

If the idea of the whole concept is to trap all the star's
energy, what happens to waste heat? Or is it assumed that
a culture like this can perform perfect total energy conversion,
and that what we would consider waste heat they would have
used for some other purpose?  Or is the backside of the sphere
a big radiator?  The whole construction seems much like a broiler
to me at times...

I'd like to read about the details involved in this, so
references would be welcomed.

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 1982 18:39:33-PDT
From: A.exp@Berkeley
To: u:space@mit-mc

Subject: Simulation of space operations with computers

The entire process of assembly of factories on the moon and in space,
their operation, and interactions with humans that control them can be
simulated once a model of the factory component behavior and of the moon
surface or space environment are operating on a computer.  In the simulation,
human observers could use a computer generated graphic to observe the
objects operated on or constructed, and interact with them to simulate
teleoperation, or allow artificial intelligence to do the operation while
the simulated world is constructed.

In addition, this simulation would be useful for training the human
teleoperators of future real systems, to the extent that artificial
intelligence is inadequate.  Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc,. has
developed a computer simulation of the steam plant of a Navy ship which
will be used in training, but could also show the state of an actual
system, in order to allow humans to control it from a computer terminal
instead of from manual work inside the engine room.  The simulation
shows qualitatively the interactions between components.

This type of simulation could be extended to show the actual appearance,
both internal and external, of any facility to be operated.  The conclusion
is that the factory in space, or space colonies, could be simulated fully,
except for the human behavior, on computer models.  Finally, this sort
of system would allow greater ease in achieving total automation in the
actual construction of the final system in space.  It is also possible
to include, however, human behavior in the simulation.  It is unnecessary
to build anything in space before the facility has been fully completed
in simulation.

For more information:

"Advanced Computer Aided Design and Modelling of Entire Colonies,"
The L-5 News, June 1982

"Development of an Advanced Computer Aided Instruction System for Propulsion
Engineering," Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., February 18, 1981, Proposal
No. P80-ISD-90

"Using Qualitative Simulation to Generate Explanations," Kenneth Forbus and
Albert Stevens, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc., March 1981, Report No. 4490

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 1982 20:54:09-PDT
From: A.exp@Berkeley
To: u:space@mit-mc

Subject: Note on material at L4 and L5

This was studied by the Space Studies Institute in 1980, but I haven't heard
the results.  It was found theoretically that material would accumulate,
and observing was scheduled.

------------------------------

Date: 23 September 1982 05:47-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Power on the Moon
To: KING at KESTREL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Gee, I may have brought up the point, but you thought of how to use
it. I like your idea of using solar energy at day and nuclear at
night. One alternative would be to use just one or the other depending
on whether the application needed light or dark. Thus robotics and
telepresence based on TV cameras in the usual way would run only
during day and use solar energy, while robotics and telepresence based
on LASER ranging to generate 3-d images would run only at night. A
given experimental station might use only one of the two methods and
thus run optimally with only one of the two power supplies. A station
trying to maintain around-the-clock operation, such as silicon wafer
production for computer circuits, would require both energy sources.

One reason I proposed sodium (liquid metal) instead of boiling water,
was that it might possibly be designed to run during the day when
ambient temperatures are already near the boiling point for water at
normal Earth pressures, making it very hard to condense the water to
feed it back into the reactor. But if you run it only at night as you
suggest, boiling water would seem optimal providing you can keep it
warm enough to avoid feeezing. I guess if it gets too cold in the
condenser (heat radiator), you can just disable the parts of the
radiator furthest from the reactor, reducing effectiveness of cooling,
causing things to run a little warmer, thus preventing freezing; so I
guess the problem of freezing isn't had to solve, providing the pipes
are strong enough to withstand repeated hard-freeze and thaw cycles.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #310    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 310

Today's Topics:
		     Conductive cooling on the Moon?
	   Dyson spheres - closed system?, detection, reference
			 Shuttle Training Flights
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 1982 08:39 PDT
From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Conductive cooling on the Moon?
To: Space at MIT-MC

Could a network of pipes, extending into the surrounding soil, cool a buried
reactor (by *conduction* rather than by radiation)?  Being no expert on heat
transfer, I have several questions:

1) What is the thermal conductivity of such soil, and does this make the idea
impractical at the outset?
2) At midday, how far down does heat from the sun-warmed surface penetrate?
3) How far down can you dig before encountering rock?
4) How large a network would be required for a "typical"-size power station?
   What's "typical"?
5) How difficult would construction be?
6) Are "heat pipes" applicable?

/John

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 1982 10:39 PDT
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Dyson spheres - closed system?, detection, reference
To: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
cc: Wedekind.es, space at MIT-MC

Will,

In his book "Disturbing the Universe" (1980, I think) Freeman Dyson
talks a bit about these things (he doesn't use the term "Dyson sphere",
of course - in fact, he says he got the idea from some SF author
whose name I can't remember).

They wouldn't be closed systems because of the infrared radiation
coming from their backsides.  We have looked (not too hard) for IR
sources of the type expected from a Dyson sphere and found nothing
so far.  Dyson thinks that we would have to mount a much bigger
effort along these lines before drawing conclusions.

He goes on to say he doesn't think this (or any huge ETI-specific
search efforts) would be a good idea - that astronomical "business
as usual" is the best way, all things considered, to look for interesting
objects both natural and artificial.  I wish I remembered his reasons
- whatever they are, you bet they're not shortsighted!

						cheers,
							Jerry 

------------------------------

Date: 23 September 1982 18:51-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
To: A.exp at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

I agree fully. I saw a simulation of the view out a ship's windows in
a harbor, on TV (Nova or Fast Forward? I forget), and it was fairly
impressive. If we get some funding to develop systems for simulation
of space construction, we might get some good simulations going by the
time we need to make final plans. One problem is it takes a long time
to design new systems of a major kind such as this simulation. Maybe
we should go ahead with pilot plants with actual equipment in space
now, using mostly off-the-shelf equipment (remember how long it took
to design a brand new Space Transporation System and get to the first
test flight?), and when the simulation is up and running THEN use it
to design and simulate the NEXT version of space manufacturing, using
actual data from the pilot plant to correct our models about space
physics that the simulator uses to compute its simulations?
(Even if we're right about the laws of physics and the mathematical
methods to handle them, we may be spending our effots on the wrong
problems. Remember how paranoid we were in 1957 about meteors
hitting the spacecraft? Imagine if we'd tried to simulate an Apollo
lunar-landing project at that time with 6 feet thick walls to shield
against meteors!.)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 82 19:41:20-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Shuttle Training Flights
Article-I.D.: alice.934
Via:  Usenet; 23 Sep 82 23:46-PDT

The crew of STS-5 took part in training exercises today.  Mission
Commander Vance Brand and pilot Robert Overmyer flew modified
Gulfstream jets over the 15,000 foot concrete runway at KSC and
practiced landings there, and mission specialists Joseph Allen and William
Lenoir flew T-38 jets around the Cape.  Tomorrow, they will all
board the shuttle at 0845 EDT and practice a mock countdown leading
to a simulated liftoff at 1100 EDT.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Sep-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #311    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 311

Today's Topics:
		       Re: solar power on the moon
       Simulation of space operations with computers, reply to REM
	      Note on material at L4 and L5, in reply to REM
			    Conestoga I Launch
			 space vs. moon colonies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 82 23:45:36-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ihps3!houxi!houxb!lmg at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: solar power on the moon

	If you really want a continuous supply of energy for the moon,
and don't mind another grandious scheme, try this:  Build large powersats
at the L4 and L5 points. Beam the energy to collectors on the surface
directly "below" the satellites. Use superconducting subsurface cables
to distribute the power to where it's needed.

	Of course your aim better be good, or ...

						Larry Geary
						Bell Labs, Holmdel
						...npois!houxi!houxb!lmg

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 1982 10:44:02-PDT
From: A.exp@Berkeley
To: u:space@mit-mc

Subject: Simulation of space operations with computers, reply to REM

There is an appropriate article on tactical simulation in (about) the
September 26, 1982 Aviation Week and Space Technology.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 1982 10:44:22-PDT
From: A.exp@Berkeley
To: u:space@mit-mc

Subject: Note on material at L4 and L5, in reply to REM

You mean time on the Large Space Telescope has officially been
allocated for looking at L-4 and L-5 for debris? Or just that SSI has
proposed allocating time?

The time was allocated, according to O'Neill, during 1980 on the 200".

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 82 15:38:26-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Conestoga I Launch

Space Services, Inc., made their first successful launch today,
as Conestoga I lifted off from Matagorda, Texas.  It was the
first time that a privately owned company has launch a rocket.
The surplus Minuteman solid motor, bought from NASA for $356K,
carried the rocket up to a suborbital flight where it released
its payload, 400 pounds of water; both fell into the Gulf of
Mexico later, just as planned.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 82 9:28:35-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70
Subject: space vs. moon colonies

         Polar lunar power has been suggested before on the net.  As the lunar
pole is not perpendicular to the ecliptic, each pole is in darkness 6 months
a year.  Two power stations are needed, with transmission lines to the equator 
pi*d/4 long, not d/4.  Might as well be equatorial.
         Why space, and not Luna? 1) Zero Gee is a useful option, 2) space is
farther out of gravity wells, 3) closer to useful markets, and 4) less terri-
torial. Benefits derivable from above are 1) Cheap, continuous, concentratable
solar power, 2) a more controllable environment, 3) Processes and structures
impossible on planetary surfaces, 4) cheaper access to more places, 5) relative
freedom from potential territorial coercion, and 6) no one need sleep in the
wet spot.  The list is endless.
	 The Libertarian State (?) of Luna cannot move out of the way of 
thrown rocks, and won't stay free long.  Governments are for gravity wells.
				Keith Lofstrom

uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl
CSnet:	tekcad!keithl@tek
ARPAnet:tekcad!keithl.tek@udel-relay

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Sep-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #312    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 312

Today's Topics:
		       Re: solar power on the moon
			       Mass Drivers
			re: space versus the moon
		re: simulators as an aid to tele-operation
			      Houston visit
		       Simulated Launch Successful
			On Rats and Sinking Ships
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 September 1982 08:25-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: solar power on the moon
To: harpo!ihps3!houxi!houxb!lmg at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

    Date: 23 Sep 82 23:45:36-PDT (Thu)
    From: harpo!ihps3!houxi!houxb!lmg at Ucb-C70
							Build large powersats
    at the L4 and L5 points. Beam the energy to collectors on the surface
    directly "below" the satellites. Use superconducting subsurface cables
    to distribute the power to where it's needed.
Yup, that's the most likely plan for lunar energy once we get
bootstrapped. But if we try to build those powersats and cables and
rectennas out of Earth materials it'll cost enough to bankrupt the
world. We must bootstrap ourselvesusing lunar and other
non-Earth-origin materials using small non-Earth-located processing
stations to produce the materials to build the grandoise large
stations. I'd like to see the bootstrapping well enough along to have
the first grandoise station by the year 2000, but our nation doesn't
seem to be headed that way.
    	Of course your aim better be good, or ...
See the discussions of not too many months ago about Geosynch-to-Earth
powersats, about phasing of signals by use of an up reference beam,
using a virtual cubic-corner-reflector to send the down beam exactly
back where the reference beam came from, about how due to relativistic
effect the downbeam is a few miles from the reference beam so you
simply offset the reference beam from the center of the rectenna, and
how if the reference beam is lost the downbeam becomes non-coherent
and spreads its energy uniformly in the celestial sphere so nobody
gets fried unless some saboteur sends a fake reference beam up, and
even then people in the beam just uncomfortably warm until they move
aside or get inside a microwave-shield such as a hardtop car.
Just about all the arguments apply for L5-to-Luna powersat beams.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 1982 2013-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-OZ>
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: minsky at MIT-OZ

1.  I hope everyone realizes that Dyson spheres are not objects, but
clouds of particles in different orbits.  An actual sphere-lie thing would
collapse at the rotation poles.  Even Ringworlds don't work because
they're unstable - that is, they don't stay centered around their star,
and actually fall in eventually.

As for heat pipes, etc., they mat be too costly.  The cheapest
thing might be just to use piles of dust to acculumate heat, and then
spread it out by tractor at (14-day) night to cool off.

You can also cool off in the day, by making suitable geometry baffles, 
or by running hot enough.

In space stations, the circulating dust hack may be quite practical
instead of rigid radiators and captive fluids.

But it is true that heat garbage is serious in space and on the moon.
Thus photovoltaics have some attraction, since their gross size
double-serves as heat-loser also.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 1982 0010-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-OZ>
Subject: Mass Drivers
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: HPM at CMU-10B

There have been several references to lunar mass drivers.

Jerry Pournelle and I made some envelope-type calculations that
seem to show that one can launch stuff from the moon rather easliy
by whirling them around and around, in a bucket with strong
Kevlar cable, up to orbital velocity, and letting go.

One can get escape velocity, even, using a moderately-tapered cable.
I recall the taper was only about 10-to-1.

There are nice problems about HOW to let the bucket go, without
disastrous shock-waves going back the cable.

Anyway, it seems to me that such a device would be very inexpensive, 
not at all massive, etc.  Therefore the mass driver is obsolete,
and more attention should be paid to this simpler device.

Any comments - or literature references?  HPM has done a lot of
sky-hook calculations.  How do they apply to this?

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 1982 17:01:41 EDT (Saturday)
From: John Redford <dm.jlr at BBN-RSM>
Subject: re: space versus the moon
To: space at mit-ai
Cc: vlsi at dec-marlboro

Space colonies are just as subject to the "territorial coercion" that
Keith Lofstrom discusses as moon colonies are.  The L4 and L5 points
are well-defined, valuable areas of space.  There are bound to be conflicts
over who uses them, and so property questions are bound to arise. We
are seeing this already with the satellite slots in geosynchronous
orbit.  At the last World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC) a couple
of years ago the equatorial countries made a serious effort to lay claim
to the sections of the geosync orbit immediately above them.  They
failed, but the Third World countries as a whole succeeded in getting
some slots reserved for their future use.  (Incidentally, this whole
issue is a problem not because there is any danger of the satellites
running into one another, but because the satellites must be a certain
angular distance apart if they are to be individually resolved by small,
cheap antennas).  The conference proceedings grew pretty heated, and this
was over the  relatively abstract issue of communication rights. 
    Lofstrom also says that the Libertarian State of Luna can not survive
since statists can drop rocks on them, but a colony in space is far more
vulnerable to attack.  A projectile coming in at 20,000 miles an hour
could demolish a colony's living cylinder almost as effectively as a nuclear
weapon.  On the moon you can burrow underground for some measure
of protection, and the destruction of one section does not mean the 
destruction of all.    
     The space versus planet argument has an analogy on earth of living
on the ocean versus living on land.  The only society I can think of where
the bulk of the population lives at sea is the boat people of the coasts
of Southeast Asia.  As far as I know, no one lives mainly on the deep 
ocean.  This might be a matter of too harsh an environment; storms at sea
are said to make those on land look like light drizzles.  It might be because
of vitamin deficiences in fish and seaweed.  If you translate hurricanes
into solar flares and vitamins into trace elements, you might conclude
that living in space, the worst wasteland of all, would not be much fun.

John Redford

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 1982 17:54:34 EDT (Saturday)
From: John Redford <dm.jlr at BBN-RSM>
Subject: re: simulators as an aid to tele-operation
To: space at mit-ai
Cc: vlsi at dec-marlboro

Let's be a little cautious in our enthusiasm for simulators in
remote control lunar operations.  The Moon will be a completely new
environment both for the operators and the programmers of the simulators.
It might take considerable first hand construction experience before
a reasonable simulator can be done.  For instance, the program may say
that it's all right to bang on the rivet, but it didn't know that 
the rivet was vacuum-welded to the girder, and so the robot's hammer 
breaks off.  Repair cost: ten million dollars.  Me, I don't trust the 
transistor circuit simulators that I use to within more than ten percent,
and they are vastly simpler than the ones you would need for tele-
operation.

John Redford

------------------------------

Date: Fri Sep 24 1982 17:19:00 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-UNIX>
Subject: Houston visit
To: lbl-unix!SPACE at MC

Greetings.  Sorry to bother the whole list with this message, but I
can't think of an alternate way of reaching the right people...

Business has taken me to Houston twice in the last couple of months,
and will probably do so again shortly, possibly for the last time
for quite a while.  So far, I haven't had time to visit the NASA
facilities in the area, but I'd very much like make such a visit
on my next trip.  By chance are there any readers of this digest
who are at the Johnson Space Center (or know someone who is) who might
be willing to show me around a bit?  I know there are some self-guided
tours, but I'd sure like to get a more "behind the scenes" looksee
if I could.  Anyway, I thought I'd give it a try.

Thanks much!

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 82 15:38:01-PDT (Fri)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70
Subject: Simulated Launch Successful
Article-I.D.: alice.937
Via:  Usenet; 26 Sep 82 1:06-PDT

The shuttle made a successful simulated liftoff on schedule, at
1100 EDT, today, and NASA said all was proceeding on schedule for
an 11 November launch.  The test was mainly to make sure that
all connections from the shuttle to its external tank and SRB's
were secure.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 82 21:39:54-PDT (Thu)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: UNKNOWN.G.asa at Ucb-C70
Subject: On Rats and Sinking Ships
Article-I.D.: populi.352
Via:  Usenet; 26 Sep 82 0:53-PDT

     I would like to see a research station on the moon (analogous to
our research stations in Antarctica), but the notion that lunar
colonization provides a deus ex machina solution to the problems of
environmental pollution and nuclear war on Earth is utterly absurd --
such escapist notions are more worthy of hard-line Creationists and
ardent Right-to-Lifers than the scientific community at large.

     Escape from nuclear or conventional war?  Don't be silly: if the
Reds can drop a dozen warheads on New York City, they can take the
trouble to blitz the moon, especially if the lunar colony has been
silly enough to arm itself with weapons capable of scratching Russia.
So long, Luna I!  Thank God you won't survive to die of radiation
sickness....

     Nuclear Power on the moon: the suggestion that nuclear wastes
would be buried hither and yon on the lunar surface really isn't so
shocking -- after all, it's just a stripped-down version of what the
nuclear power industry would like to do here on Earth.  Until the
nuclear power folks are willing to back up their talk about "safety"
with hard cash (i.e., accept the financial responsibility for damage
caused by their facilities), these claims are just irresponsible talk.
Forget human life for a moment; Three Mile Island was costly in terms
of investment.  I sure would like to see a generation of engineers
that could look upon open space as something other than a dumping
ground for inconveniently deadly by-products of their pet technology,
but I suppose that's just my knee-jerk liberalism talking.  Good-by,
Luna!  Hello, Anaconda!  In space, no one can hear you cough....

     For those of you who haven't forgetten that the Earth is
presently inhabited by approximately 4.5 billion people...and who
aren't interested in spending the rest of their life in a pressure
suit or the environmental analog of the Death Valley National Monument
Visitor Center...and who would like to do something more constructive
than just wait for the next shuttle to Luna City, here are some things
you can do (without risking your security clearance) to both improve
the quality of life at home AND have fun at the same time.

     (1) ENVIRONMENT: The Sierra Club has dozens of programs dealing
with myriad environmental issues, one of which is bound to appeal to
you.  For information on how to join, write: Sierra Club, 530 Bush
Street, San Francisco, CA 94108.

     (2) NUCLEAR POWER/WAR: Think the proponents of nuclear power/war
have bigger mouths than brains?  Become a sponsor of the Union of
Concerned Scientists by writing the union at 1384 Massachusetts Ave.,
Cambridge, MA 02238.

     (3) POPULATION: If you're concerned about the increasing number
of illigitimate births and incidents of child abuse, the rising crime
rate, or just feel that 4.5 billion people would be a good place to
stop, do some work with your local Planned Parenthood office to insure
that contraceptive devices and education continue to be made available
in your community, and that a woman's right to abortion-on-demand is
not infringed in any way.

     (4) NUCLEAR/BIOLOGICAL WAR: Either of these ought to set the
space program back about 10,000 years, so what the hell, let's skip
'em.  Write your congressmen, your president, and your local
newspapers and tell them you want out of the arms race and into the
space race.  Advise your friends, colleagues, and co-workers that
developing new bombs and nastier bugs has all the moral grandeur of
Nazi doctors experimenting on concentration camp inmates (not to
mention being expensive), and, of course, eschew such projects
yourself.  And don't wave the Red Menace bogey man at me, either: we
still haven't renounced the first strike option, and right now, I'm
more afraid of what we're likely to do than them.

     Remember, the ENTERPRISE was a multi-national undertaking....

John Hevelin    ucbvax!G:asa

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Sep-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #313    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 313

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Re: Reactors on the Moon - (nf)
			   : Lunar-Based Lasers
				Relevance
		      Re: On Rats and Sinking Ships
	       Rats, Sinking Ships, and Knee-Jerk Liberals
			     Knee >JERKS<    
			 The Moon as Environment?
			    Disaster Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 82 18:38:50-PDT (Sat)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!zeppo!whuxk!houxi!hou5d!hou5a!mat at Ucb-C70
Subject: Re: Re: Reactors on the Moon - (nf)

The whole dicussion of putting reactors on the moon, and not caring
about the resulting nuclear waste, and using the moon as a garbage dump
for hazardous materials, reminds me of the 19th century and the early
half of the 20th, when the new and large industries of the Industrial
Revolution thought nothing of dumping their wastes in the next valley,
or in somebody elses stream, or into the lungs of their workers, and
neighbors, ...  .
Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
How about a little constructive guilt here.
Please don't think I am an environmental freak.  I am not.  I want to
see progress move forward, but let's not be deliberately irresponsible.
				M Terribile
				houxz!houxi!hou5a!mat

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 1982 1215-PDT
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: : Lunar-Based Lasers
To: space at MIT-MC

Nobody has taken up the question of what a lunar-based laser could do.
Apart from the obvious use as protection against incoming objects (both
natural and man-made) there is the question I believe Dyson raised of
launching vehicles with a jet-exhaust system powered from a ground-based
laser supplying the heat to boil off a fluid carried in a tank in the
vehicle. Then too, one could imagine using the laser as a photon drive
for light-sail vehicles? 

------------------------------

Date: 26 September 1982 16:09-EDT
From: Stewart Cobb <HSC at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Relevance
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

   I'm probably not the only one who will say this, but I'll say it
anyway:

   I read this list for news and speculations about current and future
space efforts, not insults, flaming, and one-sided views on current
(alleged) problems here on Earth.  It's not that I'm not interested in
Earth problems, but I read other lists for discussions of them.  The
only time Earth's problems should appear on this list is when they
directly affect the space effort (suppose, God forbid, that Challenger
were destroyed in a race riot) or vice versa (moving heavy industry
into space so that places like Pittsburgh can be livable again).

   This missive was prompted by John Hevelin's flame.  Perhaps the
Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, and the Union of "Concerned"
Scientists should support the space effort; however, at present, they
don't.  By that criterion, John's message was not relevant to this
list.  Advertisements for groups like L-5 and SSI are relevant;
advertisements for groups like those mentioned above are not.

   If I've flamed too much here for your taste, please forgive me.
With luck, this message won't need to be repeated.

                                        Stewart (hsc@mit-mc)

------------------------------

Date: 26-Sep-82 14:19:26 PDT (Sunday)
From: JLarson at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: On Rats and Sinking Ships
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

Right on John Hevelin !!

Some of us haven't given up on planet Earth yet.

John Larson  

------------------------------

Date: 26 September 1982 18:14-EDT
From: Stewart Cobb <HSC at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Rats, Sinking Ships, and Knee-Jerk Liberals
To: UNKNOWN.G.asa at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

   From the top:

   "Irresponsible talk" and nuclear power plants -- you've got this
one turned around.  There have never been any deaths, injuries, or
losses of property, money, or even time caused by nuclear power plants
to anyone not directly involved (i.e. everyone except plant workers
and stockholders).  (If you want to argue that statement with me, I'll
be glad to defend it.)  The "irresponsible talk" comes from the
scaremongerers who frighten the public with overblown fantasies of the
consequences of events with infinitesimal probabilities of occurrence.
All while ~20 coal miners die (violently) in cave-ins each year, and
hundreds more die of black lung.  And while we burn oil we can't
afford in order to fill our lakes with acid rain.  And while ... but
why go on?  DA NUKES (not bombs, but \power plants/) are gonna RADIATE
everybody ta DEATH tomorra!  Whose side is the irresponsible talk
really on?  If you want financial responsibility, maybe the
anti-nuclear-power-plants groups should take over the payments from
the government's Black Lung Fund, since they're going to make sure it
remains in business.

   "Goodbye Luna, Hello Anaconda" -- The copper in your computer
terminal had to come from somewhere.  Personally, I'd rather it came
from a barren, airless rock than from a pretty planet like Earth.  Of
course, you're entitled to your own opinion.

   "Space as a Dumping Ground" -- You bet it is!  Specifically, it's a
place to dump things like strip mines and factories and steel mills,
which are necessary but nasty to be near. Again, I'd rather see them
in space than on Earth.  Pittsburgh could be a nice place, if it
weren't for the mills.

   "Think the proponents of nuclear power/war have bigger mouths than
brains?" -- Well, I can't say I've ever heard a proponent of nuclear
war, so I can't judge that one.  However, I've heard a number of
proposals for "disarmament" and "nuclear freezes" which sounded like
the authors were guilty of shouting slogans before thinking.  All the
Union of Concerned Scientists seems to be "concerned" about is getting
their names in the paper.
   I've already told you what I think of the opponents of nuclear
power, but you don't need to worry about its proponents.  No matter
what they say, no one will never hear them -- the media is much more
interested in the mutterings of the anti-nuclear-power gurus.
   Keep this in mind: nuclear war and nuclear power are totally
separate issues.  All that slogans like "No Nukes" have accomplished
is the confusion of the two issues in the public mind (\there's/
irresponsibility for you!).

   TRY to think about where your messages are going on the net.  There
are other mailing lists for the topics you are interested in (POLI-SCI
and ARMS-D, to name a couple).  Your message didn't really belong on
SPACE, and most of us didn't want to read it.  If you have something
that is relevant to the list, by all means send it in -- but don't
bother us with irrelevant "knee-jerk liberalism."

                                Stewart Cobb (hsc @ mit-mc)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 1982 1746-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Knee >JERKS<    
To:   space at MIT-MC  

I agree that the endless religious war between the flower adolescents
and those of us who are reasonable technological optimists should
move to the POLI-SCI list. I've already heard all the other side's slogans.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 82 0:39:40-PDT (Sun)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: harpo!duke!mcnc!unc!tim at Ucb-C70
Subject: The Moon as Environment?
Article-I.D.: unc.4006
Via:  Usenet; 26 Sep 82 18:37-PDT

M Terrible (?) has commented that a certain amount of capriciousness
is involved in the "Let's dump nuclear wastes on the Moon; nobody
will care" line. He also made some analogies with attitudes towards
Earth's environment around the turn of the century. I'd like to
examine this point in more depth.

First, the fact the the Moon is uninhabited now does not mean that
it will not have a lasrge population within a few centuries. Clearly,
we want to spoil as little of the terrain as possible for these
prospective future Lunarians. Thus, dumps should be aa small as possible.

Second, and closer to home, the front part of the Moon is part of
Earth's environment. Call me a fool, but I would fight tooth and nail
any project that would detract in the least from the appearance of
the Moon from Earth. It is one of the great beauties of nature.
Popular opinion, I'm sure, would agree; so any large-scale projects
would have to be on Farside.

Third, about pollution per se: a large part of the problem with this
on Earth is that it tends to propagate. Rivers, wind, etc., all cause
pollution to disperse and be a general menace. On the Moon, there's
only one place for it to go: down. (Or up and forever gone, for any
gaseous wastes.) Also, our hypothetical populations will presumably
live in a relatively sheltered ecosystem, unlike us poor slobs,
greatly reducing the risk from pollution. This is the real benefit
of waste dumping on the Moon.

Fourth, no one seems to have mentioned a very large problem: getting
the shit up there. The cleanup from an "accident" (say a launch pad
detonation) would be impossible. This of course only applies to
Earth-born wastes; if we could move the nuclear industry to the Moon
in toto, this problem vanishes; but we're still left with a lot of
stuff lying around down here from the present. As far as I'm
concerned, it can stay; the risk of launching it is awesome.

Finally, if the stuff is really just waste (and no matter how much
recycling you do, there will always come out something that is just
an unrecoverable mess -- 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), why not just
fire it into the Sun, or into interstellar space? Neither would
notice in the least. So the Moon is a big rock; these two are
inconceivable.

In summation, various reaches of space are "environments", and
various environmental criteria apply to their use, but in general
they are far more resilient than Earth, and therefore likely
prospects for large industrial and destructive undertakings.

					Tim Maroney ( unc!tim )

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 1982 2353-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-OZ>
Subject: Disaster Insurance
To: Space at MIT-MC

The letter from Hevelin speaks for itself: he lists enough disasters
without even mentioning the genetic engineering accidents.
Then he dismisses the space colonies on the grounds that the Soviets
might try to shoot them.  Well, they might not, also.

It makes sense to try to avoid disaster, but the only way to ensure
it is to restrain all progress.  That is probably impossible,
so it still makes sense also to spend some small investment,
e.g., 1/1000 of the wealth, on colony research.

Anyway, the issues are complex.  It is fine to be anti-nuclear
if you have checked to see if it really is worse than coal.
That is not clearly the case.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Sep-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #314    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 314

Today's Topics:
			    STS orbital speed
	      Reactors on the Moon / waste disposal on Moon
			    Lunar Environment
		      Is there space in our future?
				Relevance
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 82 12:50:01-PDT (Mon)
To: space at Mit-Mc
From: teklabs!azure!jackk at Ucb-C70
Subject: STS orbital speed

Does any one out there know the orbital speed of the Space Shuttle?
						- Jack Klinker
						!teklabs!tekmdp!jackk

------------------------------

Date: 27 September 1982 11:38-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Reactors on the Moon / waste disposal on Moon
To: harpo!zeppo!whuxk!houxi!hou5d!hou5a!mat at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The Moon is a much better place to dump lunar-nuclear-wastes than the
Earth is to dump terran-nuclear-wastes. On Earth we must find those
very few places where there hasn't been geological activity for so
long that there's unlikely to be for a long time in the future, and
where it's been dry for so long that salt has been built up so it's
likely to stay dray in the future. We've found such places, but it
took a lot of work. On the Moon, all places qualify! Just about
anywhere is a good place to dump. Just mark off a place here and there
and dump all your wastes in those places, leaving the rest of the Moon
for inhabitation. "A waste dump in every backyard" without causing
problems! The only two mechanisms for moving wste from where it was
put to anywhere else are (1) meteor collisions (common globally but
not likely in any particular spot) and (2) human malice (requiring the
same sort of military security that dumping grounds on Earth currently
need). I should think that providing we don't just toss waste into
random places, but instead restrict it to specific marked spots that
are underground to protect against random small meteors an are guarded
as soon as enough people live on the Moon to make security a problem, the
Moon should have no problem with nuclear wastes from lunar power
plants.

Note I am not advocating sending Earth-generated waste to the moon.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 1982 10:53 PDT
From: KANorman.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Lunar Environment
To: Space at MIT-MC

Tim Maroney invokes the second law of thermodynamics to forclose the
possibilty of complete recycling. I don't see how this fits. To the best of my
knowledge the second law does not say recycling is impossible, it only implies
an external source of energy must be used to (locally) increase the entropy of
the stuff undergoing reprocessing.
There is no inherent reason that nuclear wastes cannot be completely reprocessed
into component materials of at least industrial purity. All that keeps us from
doing this now is the lack of any 'economic sink' for these materials. How long
did ity take man to figure out how to use obsidian, clay, lead and other metals?
How long did we have kerosene before jets started using it?
The day will come when each of these materials has an economic niche to fill,
and we will come to know radioactive 'waste' as a renewable resource.
Lest you think I'm firing from the hip, Tim, I have a terrarium which is six
years old. It recycles all its own biomass, and I only added water once, when it
was rather young. Since then sunlight alone has allowed it to do a recycling job
in its otherwise closed container. What should I teach it about thermo so that it
will stop this outrage?

	Kevin

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 1982 10:04-PDT
From: dietz.usc-cse at UDel-Relay
Subject: Is there space in our future?
To: space at Mit-Mc

I went to the September OASIS (the LA L5 chapter) meeting this last
saturday.  It featured a debate on the future of space between
Dr. Tom Heppenheimer (author of "Colonies in Space") and Brian (?)
O'Leary, former astronaut and author of "The Fertile Stars".

The debate was lively and interesting.  Heppenheimer was a rather
straightlaced, logical type who argued that space activites aren't
going to go anywhere until radical new technologies are developed, such
as fusion engines for spacecraft.  O'Leary was, frankly, a space cadet.
He emitted all sorts of comments about "Left Hemisphere/Right
Hemisphere", spirituality, etc.  He seemed to have no logical arguments
to present (I guess he derides rational thought as "left hemisphere").

I was suprised at Heppenheimer's position.  It is diametrically
opposite to the position he took in "Colonies in Space".  He said that
solar powersats are not viable energy options but are, rather, cultural
artifacts of the mid 1970's, grand, nonpolluting, solar-powered,
government-funded panaceas.  Heppenheimer argued that space
exploitation is limited today by chemical rocket technology.  He
compared it to aviation technology, which is also mature (commercial
aviation has undergone little fundamental change in 20 years).  For
example, consider the Centaur booster, soon to be launched from the
shuttle orbiter.  It first flew in 1963(2?)!

It would have been nice to hear a rebuttal of all this, but O'Leary was
incapable of providing one.  O'Leary did present a proposed asteroid
encounter mission for 2001 with the asteroid 1982DB.  This mission
allows us to return asteroidal material with a delta-v of only 70
meters per second, and with time from earth to the asteroid of three
weeks.  The ostensible purpose of the mission would be to return with
100 tons of platinum group metals, which are more abundant in asteroids
(we think).  The scheme has unfortunate flaws, however:  how hard is
the Pt to extract?  Is there any water on the asteroid to fuel the
return trip?  Is there any Pt on the asteroid?

If Heppenheimer's right it's bad news for the space buffs.  The L5
society and others will find that if space  exploitation cannot be
economically justified (meaning: high enough payoff, low enough risk)
then it cannot be justified at all.  And if there are no big
breakthoughs we won't see space colonies.

The debate was taped by some people from OMNI.  It may appear in a
future issue.

------------------------------

Date: 27 September 1982  23:52-EDT (Monday)
Sender: CARTER at RU-GREEN
From:  Robert A. Carter <Carter at RUTGERS>
To:   Stewart Cobb <HSC at MIT-MC>
Cc:   Carter at RUTGERS, SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: Relevance

I have considerable sympathy for some of the things John Hevelin
speaks to, but little for his choice of forum.  The drive to turn any
specialized discussion into a platform for the parochial political
ideas of the speaker is sometimes construed (usually by that speaker,
and fellow zealots) as proof of true faith.  To the rest of us, it
just looks like plain bad manners.  In short, I'm with Cobb.

_Bob

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Sep-82  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #315    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 315

Today's Topics:
		      Re: On Rats and Sinking Ships
		     Chemical limits to space travel.
		      Is there space in our future?
		    satellite pictures prices going up
			      Waste on Moon.
			 Sagan vs. the colonizers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28-Sep-82  9:34:10 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Suk at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: On Rats and Sinking Ships
In-reply-to: John Hevelin's message of 23 Sep 82 21:39:54-PDT (Thu)
In-reply-to: Robert A. Carter's message of 27 September 1982  23:52-EDT (Monday)
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

I agree completely with Bob Carter.  Hevelin probably did his causes a
disservice by going overboard on SPACE Digest.  I wish, however, he would
put an address on his message so that we could send a personal reply
without having to use the digest.  I tried to message him individually,
but my message came back marked "undeliverable."

Stan Suk

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 1982 1351-EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY at MIT-OZ>
Subject: Chemical limits to space travel.
To: space at MIT-MC

It is true that the best chemical reactions have so little
specific impulse that the mass-ratio of chemical rockets is
inconvenient.  It is also true that present technology is 40 years
old, or more, since the Shuttle is little different from a
von Braun V-2 rocket.

To rebut Heppenheimer's position, we have only to consider,
for example, the Kantrowitz proposal to use laser-powered
launch aids.  Focussed radiation can in principle
convert reaction mass to plasmas with much higher specific
impulse, so that single-stage spaceships will someday be practical.
This requires a large investment in the launching laser
system.

It appears technically practical, though not politically
practical, to launch huge payloads with a Jules Verne type
earth cannon, propelled by a nuclear charge buried at
a couple of kilometers; Lowell Wood has suggested this.
Such a device might launch a compressed solar power satellite kit
to be assembled in space.  It is by no means established that
SPS is impractical - or even very expensive - in the long run.
Only, it needs a generation of research; microwaves, lasers,
etc., the available options aren't even yet all imagined.

------------------------------

Date: 28 September 1982 22:06-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Is there space in our future?
To: dietz.usc-cse at UDEL-RELAY
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

It's sad when the only person arguing our case does so with total
incompetance. Too bad OMNI taped it. If only Carl Sagan were there to
take over the pro-space side.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 1982 0002-EDT
From: Margot Flowers <Flowers at YALE>
to:       space at MIT-MC
subject:  satellite pictures prices going up

If you've been planning on ordering satellite pictures, you better
act fast.  According to the Fall 1982 CoEvolution Quarterly:

     Tom Parsons ... told us that EROS satellite data imagery prices
     (from Next Whole Earth Catalog p.  25) are going up fantastically
     this October.  A 2-1/4-square-inch-negative from Landsat, for
     instance is going from $6 to $35.  If you're thinking of ordering
     Landsat pictures, do it soon.

By the way, back issues of the CoEvolution Quarterly (its uneven
but always has something excellent) have a few articles about space
colonies in it, by ONeill and others.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 1982 2353-EDT
From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ
Subject: Waste on Moon.
To: space at MIT-MC

There probably are problems about waste disposal on lunar surface because
of high daytime temperature.  REM is right that one must bury things, and
not only because of micrometeors.  I haven't looked up, for example, the
lunar escape-velocity temperature of elemental iodine, but I wouldn't be
surprised to find that it doesn't quite make it off the moon but diffuses
around in a growing purple cloud.  If it were a few pounds of I-131 or
Sr-90, that might be pretty awful.  (Didn't Apollo actually leave a big
can of thermo-strontium around, in fact?)

This problem can be avoided completely simply by putting the stuff down a
meter or so which, I think is the level of lunar thermofrost.  Also, the
stuff should be chemically combined into larger molecules.  The molecules
must be (i) too heavy to vaporize at lunar mid-day temperatures and (ii)
have bonds that are not broken too much by sunlight.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 1982 2131-PDT
From: Hans Moravec <HPM at S1-A>
Subject: Sagan vs. the colonizers
To:   space at MIT-MC, rem at MIT-MC  

If Carl Sagan were in such a debate, he would argue on Heppenheimer's
side, rather than on O'Leary's, though for different reasons.  He would
say that manned space travel is a waste of money which could be spent for
unmanned scientific probes.  Then he would look up to show us his
awe-stricken profile.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Sep-82  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V2 #316    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 316

Today's Topics:
			      Nuclear Waste
			Nose Cone Formulae Needed
			       Centaur Wars
		      Is there space in our future?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-ZOG received by CMU-10A at 29-Sep-82 09:50:59-EDT
Date: 29 Sep 1982 09:50:54-EDT
From: Bob.Zimmermann at CMU-ZOG at CMU-10A
Subject: Nuclear Waste

  That really a brilliant idea, putting all our nuclear waste in a few
site on the moon.  The one day (circa 1998+-1) the whole thing can
get set off in a massive chain reaction,  causing immense tides,
cataclysmic disasters, and really poor acting.


		RAZ

------------------------------

Date:  29 September 1982 11:16 edt
From:  Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Nose Cone Formulae Needed
To:  SPACE at MIT-MC

Could some former or present model rocketeer forward to me the formulae
used to plot ogive, parabaloid, and ellipsoid nose cones, such as those
sold by Estes?  Pointers to reference works also appreciated.  This data
is required for a model rocket CAD program which I intend to place in
the public domain once completed.  Replies to me only, please---I can't
concieve of anybody else being interested in this.

Thanks in advance
Earl

------------------------------

Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-G received by CMU-10A at 29-Sep-82 12:02:15-EDT
Date: 29 Sep 1982 11:46:48-EDT
From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-780G at CMU-10A
Subject: Centaur Wars

The 1 October 1982 issue of Science has a briefing (p. 37) on the
Centaur upper stage for the shuttle.  On 15 September, the US House of
Representatives voted to use the Centaur.  The Air Force, which
previously favored its own solid fuel upper stage, changed its position
recently and came out in favor of the Centaur, which uses liquid
hydrogen and oxygen.  The reason, according to Rep. Edward P. Boland
(D-MA), is "that contamination detected in the shuttle's payload bay
during the test flights means that shielding will be required for
certain classified payloads, which in turn means that the Air Force
will require the greater lifting power of the Centaur."

I wonder if this contamination comes only from nuclear power supplies?

------------------------------

Date: 29 September 1982  22:17-EDT (Wednesday)
Sender: CARTER at RU-GREEN
From:  Robert A. Carter <Carter at RUTGERS>
To:   Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Cc:   Carter at RUTGERS, SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: Is there space in our future?

    Date: Tuesday, 28 September 1982  22:06-EDT
    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>

			      If only Carl Sagan were there to
    take over the pro-space side.

<<B>>illions and <<B>>illions of mock-profundities?  There are
more scientifically literate spokesmen addressing this digest.
Including yourself.

_Bob

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

